Rolf P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE
Factors for alignment of inter-dependent business processes

at KLM and Schiphol
Dissertation
Rolf P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE
ii R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE
ALL FOR ONE

at KLM and Schiphol
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, prof. dr. ir. J.T. Fokkema,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag, 15 december 2008 om 15.00 uur.
door
Rolf Peter PERIÉ
elektrotechnisch ingenieur
geboren te Soerabaja, Indonesië.
R.P. Perié iii

ALL FOR ONE
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Prof. mr. dr .ir. S.C. Santema
Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
Prof. dr. ir. J.T. Fokkema Rector Magnificus, voorzitter

Prof. mr. dr. ir. S.C. Santema Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Prof. drs. G.J.N.H. Cerfontaine Universiteit van Utrecht
Prof. dr. ir. J.A. Buijs Technische Universiteit Delft
Jhr. Prof. dr. W. Ploos van Amstel Nederlandse Defensie Academie Breda en
Den Helder
Prof. dr. P.M.J. Mendes de Leon Rijks-universiteit Leiden
Prof. dr. R. Curran Technische Universiteit Delft
Dr. R.K. Gibbs heeft inspiratie geleverd voor het onderzoek
Dr. ir. M.R.B. Reunis heeft, als externe begeleider, in de begin
fase in belangrijke mate bijgedragen aan het
tot stand komen van het proefschrift.
ALL FOR ONE, Factors for alignment of inter-dependent business processes at KLM and
Schiphol / R.P. Perié
Proefschrift Technische Universiteit Delft,

mèt literatuur opgave en samenvatting in Nederlands
ISBN/EAN 978-90-9023713-8
Key-words: factors, alignment, business processes, dyads, inter-dependency, airline-airport

relation.
Copyright © 2008 by R.P. Perié. All rights reserved.

r_p_perie@planet.nl.
iv R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation has only been feasible due to the belief in, encouragement by and support of
my research from my promotor, advisors, friends and family. Without them this research
would not have led to this product.
Prof. mr. dr. ir. S.C. Santema
I should like to express my sincere gratitude and great appreciation to my promotor, Sicco
Santema. He helped to find my research direction for which I am indebted to him. His
patience, persistence, comments and suggestions were always of great value to me. His
enthusiasm was very stimulating and provided the required motivation for me to overcome
difficult times in the course of my research. His support and trust in my ability to perform
this research are more than just commendable. I respect and also thank all the members of the
Promotion Committee for their constructive comments and suggestions.
Dr. R.K. Gibbs Dr. M.R.B. Reunis MSc. Dr. O.A.W.T. van de Riet
Although I was able to focus my interest upon creation of a virtual strategic partnership
between KLM, Royal Dutch Airlines and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS), it was the
superb research by Richard Gibbs that provided the inspiration for my dissertation. My good
friend and former office-mate during the greater part of my research, Marc Reunis, deserves
much gratitude for his excellent analytical contribution as a critical sounding board regarding
many aspects of the research methodology. Formulating various thoughts and facts on paper
require some time to bring these into proper perspective. Odette van de Riet was able to act
as a valuable mirror for this purpose.
Noa Soto Murias MSc. Mikolaj A. Fiksinski MSc. Jamyang Chhophel MSc.
Rebecca Rennestraum MSc. Michiel Drijgers MSc.,BEng. Constanstijn D.C. Wever MSc.
Hong Yang S. Oei MSc. Erik K. Driessen MSc.,BEng.
I am proud and gratified to have been able to coach and supervise a number of students
working on their final thesis and carrying out an internship for their degree as Aerospace
Engineer. The extensive literature research by Noa remains an example for all aspiring
engineers, and it was also extremely valuable for my research. Both Rebecca and Hong Yang
provided an essential reconnaissance of KLM and AAS respectively in the context of the
inter-dependent business processes of these firms. Further research by Mikolaj, Michiel, Erik
and Constantijn provided full insight into the relations of KLM and AAS in the context of
four selected inter-dependent business processes. Their findings should not only provide food
for thought but also help to align these processes in order to obtain the required competitive
advantage of this airline-airport combination. Mikolaj, Michiel and Erik have also provided
significant and creative support for the proper layout and consistency of the texts and
R.P. Perié v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ALL FOR ONE
illustrations for this research. I also note that the excellent analytical prowess of Jamyang
provided an important and valuable contribution to my research, specifically regarding
complementary and involuntary relations.
M.M.H. van Boxtel (Drs.Ing.) B.J.H. Gimberg B. Lievegoed (Drs.)

J.C.C. Bruggeman (Drs.) A.H.P. Kieboom (Drs.) O. van Reeden
A.H. Dijkstra (Drs.) M. Koopmans MSc. J.P.W.M. Smeets
The execution of an internship at KLM and AAS, which also adds value to these firms,
requires not only the willingness of these firms to suffer the presence of students but also and
more importantly their interest and guidance for the students. The efforts of these supervisors
should be commended and are highly valued.
A.C. Veldhoen
“A picture paints a thousand words” remains a relevant expression. Nettie Veldhoen, as a

friend and former colleague, provided her valuable assistance to place various figures in the
texts.
Chris
I am indebted to my family and, of course specifically, Chris for her patience, support and
reminding me that research for one PhD. is sufficient for a lifetime.
Rolf P. Perié
Delft, The Netherlands

November 24, 2008
vi R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE PREFACE
PREFACE
Introduction
The motives for this dissertation are based upon my experience in diplomatic service in
France and Portugal as well as international materiel cooperation and strategic planning.
During the period 1976 – 1979 as a young Lieutenant Commander of the Royal Netherlands
Navy, I was Secretary to the first Director General for Materiel at the Ministry of Defense. In
addition, during the period 1985 – 1992 as naval Captain, I was Director of Planning and
Policy at the Naval Materiel Directorate and subsequently Defense Attaché at The
Netherlands embassies in Paris, France as well as in Lisbon, Portugal.
Inter-dependence and Mutual Benefit
I am convinced of the necessity and in many cases actual requirement for deeper inter-
dependence of European society in general and in particular of European industry.
Maintenance of divisions within Europe according to in the main national preferences is and
will be detrimental to prosperity of this continent. In order to provide a valuable contribution
to the creation of a stronger and more resilient European industry, specific attributes require
to be developed by relevant national actors which are to be accepted in the competitive
European context.
Based upon my specific experience during my career within the Ministry of Defense,
described above, as well as at the NATO C3 Agency (1993 – 1996) and the National
Organization for Applied Science TNO (1996 – 2005), I envisage a form of a virtual strategic
partnership- without distorting competitive practice - between at least two important
contributors to the product of aviation industry within The Netherlands, i.e. KLM, Royal
Dutch Airlines and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS). Important aims are to increase
capacity-oriented operations, reduce the integral cost of hub-airport operations, increase joint
revenues and improve their mutual image in order to gain and maintain their competitive
advantage in North-western Europe.
This partnership of KLM and AAS can only be created and remain successful as a result of
shared values across borders of the firms, an updated long term Main Port vision and jointly
established regularly reviewed prioritized programs based upon alignment or partial
integration of their value chains. This partnership can thus be focused upon their shared and
better aligned business processes as each of these processes contribute to their joint product,
while these firms operate customer-oriented to also their mutual benefit.
The Scientific Challenge
The international competitiveness of the national economy, including in particular the

aviation industry, depends to an extent on the ability to create science-based knowledge
which is relevant, rigorous, and which makes a valuable contribution to society and its
institutions. This implies, in my view, that knowledge developed by academia should help
R.P. Perié vii

PREFACE ALL FOR ONE
practitioners to make better-informed decisions and implement more effective solutions for
opportunities and problems they encounter.
This provides an important challenge to me as PhD. researcher, within the field of Aerospace
Management and Operations, to hone my effectiveness at creating and transferring
knowledge which is relevant, rigorous, and valuable for practical application for KLM and
AAS the same time.
This research regards the improvement of the effectiveness and efficiency of specific
business processes of airlines and airports. In particular the feasibility of alignment of inter-
dependent business processes of KLM and AAS will be contributed. The aim is to find
factors for the envisaged alignment of these specific business processes to improve e.g. their
capacity-oriented hub operations etc. mentioned above.
Scientific Inspiration for Dissertation
During the orientation phase of my research, I found extensive research for thesis work
carried out at the University of Gloustershire by Dr. Richard K. Gibbs. That research is
concerned with understanding mediating effects of attributes of relational exchange on both
tangible and affective outcomes of a manufacturer – intermediary relationship. That research
argues that inter-organizational relationships represent a potential source of competitive
advantage and, specifically, that it is the manner in which these relationships are managed
that enables a realization of above average returns for a firm (Gibbs, 2006).
The great majority of different forms of alignment of business processes was and still is used
for business growth by expanding existing markets or entering new markets. However in
recent years two other aspects have become increasingly important. These are alliances for
innovation and alliances to add value or cut cost in the supply or value chains. Regarding the
last aspect, organizations (e.g. Toyota and Rolls Royce) have long woken up to the added
value of alignment in their supply or value chains by sharing critical knowledge with
suppliers. These industries have thus either reduced the non-value adding steps in their chains
or transformed these into activities that do add value, which is more challenging.
Summary
Based upon inspiring research results regarding the attainment of competitive advantage by
focused management as well as alignment of value chains, including sharing of resources and
reduction of non-value adding steps, a starting point is established for this research to satisfy
my scientific interests.
Of course, I hope that this research will be regarded as an original contribution, but claim to
originality is difficult to establish. In building science, each researcher starts with
contributions of others.
viii R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
As airline and hub competition becomes fiercer, airline-airport co-operation becomes a

necessary option for both main carrier airlines and hub airports to face this competition
together. The inter-dependency between airlines and airports in producing air-transport
services is tight, i.e. their destinies are inter-twined. Their existence as viable economic
entities depends upon market performance of each other. This leads to the assumption that
the relation of airlines – airports serves as an example case for dyadic alignment.
Although research has been carried out regarding many forms of co-operation, little is known
about specifically alignment at the business process level. By alignment of their inter-
dependent dyadic business processes competitive advantage can be obtained; both KLM and
AAS have acknowledged this.
The aim of this research is to determine Factors for Alignment for specific inter-dependent
business processes at KLM and AAS. For research purposes the research question is
formulated as follows:
Which are the factors for alignment of dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS?
Answers to this research question are to increase the understanding of the effect of different
factors upon alignment. This research has a theoretical as well as a practical value. It
develops a theoretical Delft Factors for Alignment (DFA) model. This enables subsequent
development of analysis tools that quantitatively and qualitatively measure the performance
of Factors for Alignment. For practical purposes, it identifies issues and maps differences and
similarities present between KLM and AAS within their specific dyadic business processes.
These dyadic processes are Environmental Capacity, Network Planning, Infrastructure
Planning and Aircraft Stand Allocation.
This research is based upon the assumption that alignment of the dyadic business processes
of KLM and AAS is achieved by addressing the issues affecting alignment regarding various
subjects within each business process, as indicated by employees of these firms.
By making use of interviews and questionnaires within both firms it is found that the issues
present within four dyadic business processes of these firms, at three different levels of
decision making, can be modeled by the developed DFA model. The model identifies the
most potential of Factors for Alignment of their dyadic business processes. It is proven that
the DFA model is a diagnostic tool in finding the Factors for Alignment of dyadic business
processes of KLM and AAS by creating a structured ordering of the issues by interviews and
questionnaires.
The research question, as formulated above, is answered by primary and secondary Factors
for Alignment per business process. This also implies that the DFA model is effective for
analysis of dyadic business processes.
The research methodology has proven to be viable. This would encourage application for
research of other dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS, which could also strengthen
their competitive advantage.
R.P. Perié ix
ABSTRACT ALL FOR ONE
x R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v
Preface.................................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures........................................................................................................................ xv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xvii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................. xix
1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 21
1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................21
1.2 Research Background.......................................................................................................................22
1.2.1 Civil Aviation and Alignment ....................................................................................................22
1.2.2 Context for and Corporate Interest of KLM & AAS..................................................................27
1.2.3 Research within Strategy of Aerospace Management and Operations.......................................32
1.3 Scope of the Research Field..............................................................................................................33
1.3.1 Value Chain and Application of Williamson’s Organizational Failure Framework ..................34
1.3.2 Value Chain Management ..........................................................................................................35
1.3.3 Inter-organizational Relationships..............................................................................................37
1.3.4 Management of Inter-dependence ..............................................................................................39
1.3.5 Competitiveness is Dependent upon Alignment ........................................................................40
1.3.6 Aspects of Dyadic Inter-action...................................................................................................44
1.3.7 Business Process Dyads .............................................................................................................44
1.3.8 Business Process Alignment ......................................................................................................46
1.3.9 Process Selection........................................................................................................................49
1.3.10 Research Field ............................................................................................................................50
1.4 Research Contributions....................................................................................................................52
1.4.1 Scientific Contribution ...............................................................................................................52
1.4.2 Managerial Contribution ............................................................................................................53
1.4.3 Societal Contribution..................................................................................................................54
1.5 Structure of Dissertation ..................................................................................................................54
2 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 57

2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................57
2.2 Research Question ............................................................................................................................58
2.3 Research Setup ..................................................................................................................................58
2.3.1 Literature Research ....................................................................................................................58
2.3.2 Case Studies ...............................................................................................................................61
2.4 Interview ............................................................................................................................................66
2.4.1 Intent ..........................................................................................................................................66
2.4.2 Data ............................................................................................................................................67
2.5 Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................69
2.5.1 Intent ..........................................................................................................................................69
2.5.2 Data ............................................................................................................................................70
R.P. Perié xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ALL FOR ONE
2.6 Combining Interview and Questionnaire Data ..............................................................................72

2.7 Comparing Results of Partner Firms ..............................................................................................74
2.8 Presenting Analysis Results per Firm and per Dyad .....................................................................75
2.9 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................75
3 Literature Research into Factors for Alignment ....................................................... 77

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................77
3.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................77
3.3 Composing the Article Long, Short and Final Lists.......................................................................79
3.4 Defining Constructs ..........................................................................................................................81
3.5 Defining the Factors..........................................................................................................................83
3.5.1 Linking Attributes to Constructs and Factors.............................................................................83
3.5.2 Defining the Factors and Constructs ..........................................................................................89
3.6 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................92
4 Research of Business Processes at KLM and AAS .................................................... 95

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................95
4.2 Case I: Environmental Capacity......................................................................................................97
4.2.1 KLM Analysis ............................................................................................................................97
4.2.2 Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Analysis ....................................................................................102
4.2.3 Conclusion Environmental Capacity Dyad KLM - AAS .........................................................105
4.3 Case II: Network Planning.............................................................................................................109
4.3.1 KLM Analysis ..........................................................................................................................109
4.3.3 Conclusion Network Planning Dyad KLM – AAS ..................................................................117
4.4 Case III: Infrastructure Planning..................................................................................................121
4.4.1 KLM Analysis ..........................................................................................................................121
4.4.3 Conclusion Infrastructure Planning Dyad KLM - AAS ...........................................................129
4.5 Case IV: Aircraft Stand Allocation ...............................................................................................133
4.5.1 KLM Analysis ..........................................................................................................................133
4.5.3 Conclusion Aircraft Stand Allocation Dyad KLM-AAS..........................................................141
5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 145
5.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................145
5.2 Research Question and Research Set-up ......................................................................................145
5.3 Research Contributions..................................................................................................................148
6 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 151

6.1 Further Application ........................................................................................................................151
6.2 Further Research ............................................................................................................................151
7 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 157
7.1 Research Validity ............................................................................................................................157
7.2 Research Limitations ......................................................................................................................159
7.3 Complementary and Involuntary Relations .................................................................................159
7.4 Reflection .........................................................................................................................................160
References ............................................................................................................................ 163
xii R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendices........................................................................................................................... 171
Appendix A Process Descriptions .........................................................................................................173
A.1 Environmental Capacity ...............................................................................................................173
A.2 Network Planning .........................................................................................................................176
A.3 Infrastructure Planning .................................................................................................................177
A.4 Aircraft Stand Allocation..............................................................................................................182
Appendix B Article Long/Short/Final List...........................................................................................187
B.1 Article Long List ..........................................................................................................................187
B.2 Article Short List ..........................................................................................................................198
B.3 Article Final List...........................................................................................................................202
Appendix C Construct Definitions and Questionnaire Contents .......................................................205
C.1 Construct Definitions....................................................................................................................205
C.2 Questionnaire Contents.................................................................................................................207
Appendix D Article Characteristics......................................................................................................209
Appendix E Key Documents .................................................................................................................213
Summary.............................................................................................................................. 215
Nederlandse Samenvatting................................................................................................. 221
Curriculum Vitae ................................................................................................................ 227
Note: Due to their company-confidential nature, Appendices F, G and H are available upon request only.
R.P. Perié xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ALL FOR ONE
xiv R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Research focus within national civil aviation ....................................................................................23

Figure 1-2: Overview of Major Airline Business Models in Europe....................................................................24
Figure 1-3: Unit Cost Comparison across European Flag Carrier Models vs. LCC.............................................24
Figure 1-4: Major Challenges for the European Airline Industry.........................................................................26
Figure 1-5: Alignment in the Value Chain ...........................................................................................................27
Figure 1-6: Mainport development objectives of KLM and AAS ........................................................................30
Figure 1-7: Mainport interaction cycle of this research........................................................................................31
Figure 1-8: Processes and aspects influencing the interaction cycle ....................................................................31
Figure 1-9: Value Chain Transition from Adversarial to Collaborative Relationships ........................................35
Figure 1-10: Value Chain Airports.......................................................................................................................36
Figure 1-11: Value Chain Airlines .......................................................................................................................37
Figure 1-12: Determinants of Inter-organizational Competitive Advantage ........................................................42
Figure 1-13: Types of Business Processes Managed Jointly for Mutual Benefit .................................................46
Figure 1-14: Transitioning to a more aligned model ............................................................................................51
Figure 1-15: Dissertation Structure ......................................................................................................................55
Figure 2-1: Literature Research Approach phases...............................................................................................61
Figure 2-2: Research Set-up .................................................................................................................................64
Figure 2-3: Levels of respondents’perspectives ...................................................................................................66
Figure 2-4: Interview transcript analysis approach...............................................................................................68
Figure 2-5: Respondent Specific Factor Occurrence Matrix ................................................................................69
Figure 2-6: Bar chart Illustration of Average Factor Score and Average Factor Delta ........................................71
Figure 2-7: Influence of Factor Delta on improvement effect ..............................................................................72
Figure 2-8: Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot .......................................................................................................73
Figure 2-9: Research Set-up, Parts and Chapter Layout.......................................................................................76
Figure 3-1: Gibbs Model ......................................................................................................................................78
Figure 3-2: Literature Research Methodology, Phases 1 – 5................................................................................79
Figure 3-3: From Gibbs constructs to Delft Factors for Alignment .....................................................................81
Figure 3-4: Constructs seen over Time.................................................................................................................82
Figure 3-5: DFA model ........................................................................................................................................93
Figure 4-1: Continuation Research Approach phases 6 - 8 ..................................................................................95
Figure 4-2: KLM Environmantel Capacity Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta..............................99
Figure 4-3: KLM Environmental Capacity Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot.....................................................100
Figure 4-4: AAS Environmental Capacity Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta.............................103
Figure 4-5: AAS Environmental Capacity Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot......................................................104
R.P. Perié xv
LIST OF FIGURES ALL FOR ONE
Figure 4-6: KLM Network Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta......................................111
Figure 4-7: KLM Network Planning Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot ..............................................................112
Figure 4-8: AAS Network Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta ......................................115
Figure 4-9: AAS Network Planning Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot ...............................................................116
Figure 4-10: KLM Infrastructure Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta............................123
Figure 4-11: KLM Infrastructure Plannine Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot.....................................................124
Figure 4-12: AAS Infrastructure Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta.............................127
Figure 4-13: AAS Infrastructure Planning Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot......................................................128
Figure 4-14: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta ........................135
Figure 4-15: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot .................................................136
Figure 4-16: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta .........................139
Figure 4-17: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot..................................................140
Figure A-1: The Alders Process .........................................................................................................................174
Figure A-2: Infrastructure Planning and Development Process .........................................................................180
Figure A-3: Gate Planning Process ....................................................................................................................184
Figure A-4: Area Division Transfer Central vs. Common Use ..........................................................................185
Figure 0-1: DFA model ......................................................................................................................................219
Figure 0-1: DFA model ......................................................................................................................................226
xvi R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Literature Search Data ........................................................................................................................79

Table 3-2: Article Ranking Results ......................................................................................................................80
Table 3-3: Construct Competence Fit, associated Attributes and Factors ............................................................84
Table 3-4: Construct Structure Fit, associated Attributes and Factors .................................................................84
Table 3-5: Construct Culture Fit, associated Attributes and Factors ....................................................................85
Table 3-6: Construct Social Bonding, associated Attributes and Factors.............................................................85
Table 3-7: Construct Competence Fit, associated Attributes and Factors ............................................................86
Table 3-8: Construct Dependency, associated Attributes and Factors..................................................................86
Table 3-9: Construct Communication, associated Attributes and Factors............................................................87
Table 3-10: Construct Cooperation, associated Attributes and Factors................................................................88
Table 3-11: Construct Commitment, associated Attributes and Factors ..............................................................89
Table 3-12: Construct Conflict, associated Attributes and Factors ......................................................................89
Table 3-13: Definitions Constructs and Factors for Alignment............................................................................90
Table 3-14: Relation Factor and Article Number .................................................................................................91
Table 4-1: KLM Environmental Capacity Factor Occurrence Matrix..................................................................98
Table 4-2: KLM Environmental Capacity Ranked Results Compared.................................................................99
Table 4-3: KLM Environmental Capacity Process Ranked Factors ...................................................................101
Table 4-4: AAS Environmental Capacity Factor Occurrence Matrix.................................................................102
Table 4-5: AAS Environmental Capacity Ranked Results Compared ...............................................................104
Table 4-6: AAS Environmental Capacity Process Ranked Factors....................................................................105
Table 4-7: Environmental Capacity Factor Potential for Alignment ..................................................................106
Table 4-8: Environmental Capacity Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM ...............................107
Table 4-9: KLM Network Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix .........................................................................110
Table 4-10: KLM Network Planning Ranked Results Compared ......................................................................112
Table 4-11: KLM Network Planning Process Ranked Factors...........................................................................113
Table 4-12: AAS Network Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix ........................................................................114
Table 4-13: AAS Network Planning Ranked Results Compared .......................................................................116
Table 4-14: AAS Network Planning Process Ranked Factors............................................................................117
Table 4-15: Network Planning Factor Potential for Alignment..........................................................................118
Table 4-16: Network Planning Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM.......................................119
Table 4-17: KLM Infrastructure Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix................................................................122
Table 4-18: KLM Infrastructure Planning Ranked Results Compared...............................................................124
Table 4-19: KLM Infrastructure Planning Process Ranked Factors ...................................................................125
Table 4-20: AAS Infrastructure Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix.................................................................126
R.P. Perié xvii

LIST OF TABLES ALL FOR ONE
Table 4-21: AAS Infrastructure Planning Ranked Results Compared ...............................................................128

Table 4-22: AAS Infrastructure Planning Process Ranked Factors....................................................................129
Table 4-23: Infrastructure Planning Factor Potential for Alignment ..................................................................130
Table 4-24: Infrastructure Planning Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM ...............................131
Table 4-25: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Factors Occurrence Matrix...........................................................134
Table 4-26: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Ranked Results Compared ...........................................................136
Table 4-27: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Process Ranked Factors ...............................................................137
Table 4-28: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Occurrence Matrix .............................................................138
Table 4-29: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Ranked Results Compared............................................................140
Table 4-30: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Process Ranked Factors ................................................................141
Table 4-31: Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Potential for Alignment .............................................................142
Table 4-32: Aircraft Stand Allocation Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM ...........................143
Table 5-1: Primary and secondary Factors for Alignment per business process ................................................147
Table C-0-1: Questionnaire Contents .................................................................................................................207
xviii R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

ADP Aéroports de Paris
AMO Aerospace Management and Operations
ANS Air Navigation Services
ASK Available Seat Kilometers
C3 Command, Control and Communications
C³ Co-operative, Coordinating, Collaborative
CDC Cour des Comptes
CEO Chief Executive Officer
Delta Difference expressed between measurements
DFA Delft Factors for Alignment
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GAO General Accountability Office
HIGH High Potential for Alignment
IOR Inter-organizational relationships
KLM Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, Royal Dutch Airlines
LCC Low Cost Carriers
LFA Low Fare Airlines
LOW Low Potential for Alignment
LVNL Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland
MEDIUM Medium Potential for Alignment
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OC&C OC&C Strategy Consultants
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
SIM Samenwerkingsverband Innovatieve Main Port
TNO Technisch Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek
UvA Universiteit van Amsterdam
VAP Value-adding Partnership
Abbreviations of Factors for Alignment
Att Attitude
C&P Coordination & Planning
CA Cooperation Assessment
CCF Corporate Culture Fit
CE Cooperation Experience
CEff Communication Effectiveness
CI Communication Intensity
CO Cooperation Objectives
CP Communication Pro-activeness
CR Conflict Resolution
R.P. Perié xix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ALL FOR ONE
CS Communication Systems
CSp Collaborative Support
DR Dedicated Resources
GF Geographical Fit
Int Integrity
JI Joint Image
L&T Learning & Training
MA Mutual Acceptance
MD Mutual Dependence
Mns Mind-set
MS Management Skills
NCF Objectives Fit
OS Organizational Skills
PB Power Balance
PCF Professional Culture Fit
R&R Roles & Responsibilities
SC Structural Compatibility
Sh Sharing
SND Social Network Development
TB Team Building
xx R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This research is focused upon the determination of Factors for Alignment between specific
inter-dependent business processes of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij (KLM), Royal
Dutch Airlines and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS). This chapter serves as overall
introduction to the research. The research design for this dissertation is described in Chapter
2. The execution and results of this research are described in Chapters 3 through 5 of this
dissertation.
The relationship of airlines and airports is not only complex but also not well understood by
all users thereof.
“The financial health of airlines is precarious (Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 16,
2008, p.62). Fuel prices are not at the core of the problem.” The solution is not consolidation
according to Robert L. Crandall in this article. “Mergers will not lower fuel prices. They will
require major capital expenditures, for business processes, likely to increase labor costs and
will disadvantage many employees.” Crandall continues by stating that “the goal of the
aviation industry should be to harness competition and regulation to create a system
responsive to the imperative of efficiency and the desirability of decent service. The aviation
industry’s problems reflect several shortcomings:
• Unfettered competition does not work;
• Governments have not developed national transportation plans and have been
indifferent to the decline of highways, railroads and airlines;
• Governments have failed to give sufficient priority to new air traffic control systems.”
Airlines have special characteristics incompatible with a completely unregulated
environment according to Crandall. “Market forces alone cannot and will not produce a
satisfactory industry.”
According to a report by the Cour des Comptes (CDC), the French oversight agency similar
to the U.S. Government’s General Accountability Office (GAO) as well as in The
Netherlands the Algemene Rekenkamer, released a report regarding the unrealistic and ill-
fated strategic planning of the Parisian airport authority (ADP), which runs Charles de Gaulle
and Orly airports and several general aviation fields (Aviation Week & Space Technology,
August 4, 2008, p.42). The CDC report maintains that insufficient service quality is provided
to the traveling public, despite recent fee increases. CDC indirectly raises the crucial issue
that it is not apparent if the primary goals of airports are to serve the traveling public or to
seek a robust return upon investment.
In an advertisement by ADP of the development of their real estate for business centers and
office space as well as for associated services no reference is made to the airport’s “raison
d’être”, i.e. running airports. Is the airport authority no longer fully dedicated to its calling,
but rather focusing on profitability? An independent investigative review for the French
government has listed that their airport charges are higher than average. Pierre Sparaco, the
R.P. Perié 21
INTRODUCTION ALL FOR ONE
author of the previous mentioned question maintains that a fresh approach is required for the
Parisian airports strategy to strengthen or at least restore the traveling public’s expectations.
The above mentioned complexity in the context of the relation of airlines and airports
supports the requirement for research for a model regarding mitigation of the complexity
between e.g. KLM and AAS. This research leads to the creation of the Delft Factors for
Alignment model.
Paragraph 1.2 provides the background for this research by placing it in the context of a
global dynamic industry, priorities of national government including those related to
strengthening main ports, aspects of corporate interest as well as research within the
department of Aerospace Management and Operations at the University of Technology in
Delft.
Subsequently paragraph 1.3 discusses the scope of the research field. The scientific,
managerial and societal contributions are described in paragraph 1.4. Finally the structure of
the dissertation is illustrated in paragraph 1.5.
1.2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

In this paragraph descriptions of the influence of development of global and national aspects,
corporate interest as well as the research strategy of the department of Aerospace
Management and Operations at the University of Technology in Delft which have led to this
dissertation, are provided in the following sub-paragraphs.
1.2.1 CIVIL AVIATION AND ALIGNMENT
The basic infrastructure for civil aviation of any country comprises the following four major
components (UvA, 2006, p.11; Albers et al., 2005):
1. Airlines;
2. Airports;
3. Air Navigation Services (ANS);
4. Regulatory system.
The components airports and ANS enable the component airlines to embark and disembark
passengers, load and unload cargo and to transport these between an origin and destination in
a safe, efficient and economical manner. The whole process is conducted under the guidance
and supervision of the regulatory system within a framework of civil aviation laws and
regulations, as well as in the environment.
Amongst the four entities, airlines and airports are primarily oriented towards producing the
air transport services, wherein the latter acts as provider of the ground infrastructure, whilst
the former offers the transportation service itself (Albers et al., 2005, p.50). “The airports
provide all the infrastructure needed to enable passengers and freight to transfer from surface
to air modes of transport and allow airlines to take off and land” (Graham, 2005, p.1). The
22 R.P. Perié
essence of airline management “… is about matching the supply of air services, which
management can largely control, with the demand for such services, over which management
has much less influence” (Doganis, 2001, p.6). Regardless of the division of labor within the
production of their product, airlines and airports focus on the same targets for quality service,
in terms of punctuality, reliability and service. This research is focused upon the dyadic
relation between airlines and airports, more specifically Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij
(KLM), Royal Dutch Airlines and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS). This is illustrated in
Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Research focus within national civil aviation
Airlines and KLM

According to Ringbeck (2005, p.12), the air travel industry is in the grip of a far reaching
restructuring process, as a reaction to what may be the worst crisis in its short history. The
changed pattern of demand by e.g. new markets in Eastern Europe and Asia, the sustained
success of the low-fare airlines/low cost carriers (LFA/LCC) and the significant increase of
fuel costs have forced the traditional network carrier airlines into a fundamental rethink of
their business model and into making a massive improvement in their cost position. The
European network airlines face direct competition from LFA/LCC on approximately a third
of their intra-European routes (Ringbeck et al., 2007). Furthermore, LFA/LCC are
dominating the generation of new routes, having started four out of every five new city-pairs
opened in the past years. By now these LFA/LCC’s have achieved a market share of
approximately 25% of intra-European passengers. The significant increase of the fuel costs
during the recent time frame of 2007 – 2008 for all airlines has amplified the necessity to not
only cut costs and economize in the short term but also revise firm strategy for the longer
term, illustrated by Figure 1-2.
R.P. Perié 23
Figure 1-2: Overview of Major Airline Business Models in Europe

(Ringbeck et al., 2007)
A comparison of the average unit costs of the different flag carrier airlines with the
LFA/LCC’s indicates a substantial gap of 45% and leads to the conclusion that the traditional
business model of a legacy flag carrier airline urgently needs to be reshuffled. This
comparison is illustrated in Figure 1-3 (ASK denotes “available seat kilometers”).
Figure 1-3: Unit Cost Comparison across European Flag Carrier Models vs. LCC
24 R.P. Perié
Airports and AAS

Similarly, airports need to adapt their service offering to the changed requirements of their
airline customers and to face up to the increasing factors of competition as well as e.g.
environmental constraints and a profusion of smaller flights to regional locations.
KLM and AAS interact in many fields at various levels in both organizations. The most
noticeable type of interaction can be observed in airside operations, i.e. the area where
aircraft take-off, land, taxi are prepared for a flight. Operational activities are at the core of
the inter-dependent relationship between both organizations. According to Graham (2005,
p.62) a wide range of activities can be monitored at an airport. Among these are: airside
delays, baggage delivery, terminal processing times, equipment availability, while consumer
satisfaction levels are measured as well. Many of these aspects are beyond control of the
airport. In fact airlines have a great deal of influence upon the performance of these aspects.
As the largest operator at AAS, KLM performance is bound to have an influence in the way
AAS is viewed by consumers.
The inter-dependency between airlines and airports in producing the air-transport services is
tight, i.e. their destinies are inter-twined. Their existence as viable economic entities depends
upon market performance of each other. This leads to the expectation that the relation of
airlines – airports serves as an example case for dyadic alignment.
Restructuring and cost-cutting are only the first steps on a path that will see the nimblest
survive and the weakest fail (Ringbeck et al., 2007, p.1). Not only the responsiveness of
airports to transfer time, convenience and journey price to maintain the allegiance of visiting
airlines is required, as value drivers for passengers, but also the ever increasing competition
of regional and point-to-point travel due to European deregulation (Ringbeck et al., 2005,
p.2).
After decades of largely independent, solitaire development strategies both airlines and
airports have started to rethink their traditional customer-supplier relationship (Auerbach and
Koch, 2007). While traditionally airports have been considered as infrastructure providers for
airlines, today the situation is being seen as more of one of an air transport system as a whole.
At the same time, liberalization and deregulation of the aviation industry have led to
increasing competition. New airlines and business models have emerged; former military
airports have been converted and are now being used for civil aviation activities (Koch, as
cited by Auerbach and Koch, 2007). Traffic patterns and airline network structures have
changed in a manner that competition is not between single carrier airlines or limited to
origin-and-destination traffic but between air traffic systems and their global hub airports As
such, joint airline-airport combinations are in competition with other combinations
(Ringbeck et al., 2005). At the same time traffic volumes are increasing, recent kerosene
price increases are causing profit margins to decrease significantly and travel behavior is
changing which require flexible responses from all actors in the aviation industry, as
illustrated by Figure 1-4.
R.P. Perié 25
Figure 1-4: Major Challenges for the European Airline Industry

A possible reaction to these developments is more alignment between airlines and airports
realizing that additional opportunities involving less risk can be realized by jointly
developing entrepreneurial activities (Auerbach and Koch, 2007). The objective of these
efforts is to create profit for each partner. At its core is an attempt to jointly serve and cope
with traffic demand in a profitable, efficient and sustainable way (Auerbach and Koch, 2007).
Clear strategic alignment for the aviation industry, the participation policy, brand building,
the structure of the service portfolio and the business processes exert considerable influence
over the long term success of the “best practice airports” (Ringbeck et al., 2005, p.12). The
exploitation of improved alignment of airlines and airports will constitute a fundamental
precondition for improving operational effectiveness and efficiency and developing new
areas of business.
The potential benefits of horizontal forms of alignment have been recognized by both
scholars and also airlines and airports (Albers et al., 2005, p.1). Albers et al. (2005, p.1)
define an “alliance as any voluntary formed, contractual arrangement between two or more
independent firms with the declared intention of improving long-term competitiveness and
thereby enhancing overall performance”. Organizations have implemented measures to
establish alignment of varying nature. The derived savings and accrued revenue have not
only benefited government and shareholders but also provided opportunities for investment
of capital otherwise required for operational costs.
The next step in obtaining additional significant financial benefits is sharing the required
effort for the interaction of similar major functionalities and processes by an improved
alignment (Ringbeck et al., 2005, p.11).
Although airlines and airports recognize the potential benefits, a clear acceptance to facilitate
the application of alignment has not widely been agreed upon (Albers, 2005). It is therefore
not only necessary to define the benefits but also provide a way ahead for the implementation
26 R.P. Perié
of factors for alignment to realize its potential for the mutual benefit of the (main carrier)
airline and (hub) airport, i.e. KLM and AAS.
In this research the various levels of research are hierarchically linked. The corresponding
texts are found in the various sub-paragraphs of this chapter.
The following figures of concentric egg-shells show the relative relation of various levels of
research from the value chain to inter-dependent business processes. This is illustrated in
Figure 1-5.
Figure 1-5: Alignment in the Value Chain
1.2.2 CONTEXT FOR AND CORPORATE INTEREST OF KLM & AAS

Due to the large economic importance of AAS for The Netherlands, the government of The
Netherlands published its policy regarding “Toekomst van de Nederlandse Luchtvaart
Infrastructuur” (i.e. Future of the Dutch Aviation Infrastructure) in December 1999. This is
the initiative for a project which in 2002 gains its name as “Main Port Objective”. The aim of
this project is maintenance of the competitive advantage of AAS as well as its associated
international preferred place of business in relation to other agglomerations in North-western
Europe. In spite of the important role of AAS for the economy of The Netherlands as well as
its contribution to employment, the Main Port Objective is constrained by limitations due to
environmental considerations of the (same) government. These limitations constrain the
number of aircraft movements significantly. The increase of capacity as well as aircraft
movements is crucial to attain the Main Port Objective (Ministry of Transport, 2003).
The position of The Netherlands in relation to the rest of the World has become less
competitive (Ministry of Transport, 2006, p.69, 85). In the 1980’s and 1990’s this country
R.P. Perié 27
was positioned amongst the leading countries of the World in providing modern logistic
processes and related governmental policies. The European continent has been able to catch
up with The Netherlands since that period in time due to its focus on e.g. enlargement of the
European Union. Consolidation of industry in Europe has also gained significant momentum.
In that context The Netherlands’ Government (Ministry of Transport, 2006, p.5, 89) wishes
e.g.:
• to recognize that innovation is necessary for The Netherlands to remain e.g. a
prosperous, accessible and secure nation against reasonable costs for society; and
• to maintain the position of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) as one of the
important hubs in North-western Europe, i.e. a Main Port.
This fits in the aim to attain a durable, sustainable and competitive economy (Ministry of
Transport et al., 2006b).
The following aspects determine the maintenance of the competitive position of AAS as a
Main Port in the global context (UvA, 2006, p.2; KLM, AAS and LVNL, 2005, p.6-7):
• Consolidation of the aviation market;
• Competitive position in relation to other Main Ports;
• Growth possibilities of AAS;
• Realization of environmental goals;
• Competitive position of the region;
• Reduction of the perception of nuisance.
From the above mentioned aspects, this research is restricted to the alignment of specific
Main Port related processes. Innovative solutions for capacity related constraints of the Main
Port AAS, now as well as in future, are to be provided (KLM, AAS and LVNL, 2005, p.8;
UvA, 2006).
In view of the fact that many hub airports are situated geographically in close proximity,
AAS is required to improve its services to remain and become more known as a best practice
airport (UvA, 2006). KLM is to improve its effectiveness and efficiency as main carrier
airline, within the holding company Air France – KLM, as it is required to not only attract
new customers - passengers as well as cargo - but also maintain the allegiance of its present
customers.
Attractiveness of a hub airport in the European and global context is required for new
investors, customers, passengers and cargo. This will mainly be determined by demonstrable
effective and efficient operation and interaction between existing relevant parties, i.e. AAS
and KLM. Joint measures, i.e. alignment of parts of their value chains and more specifically
the inter-related business processes, will facilitate the required reorganization of capacity.
The complexity of not only the diverse business relationships of a hub airport (AAS) but also
at the major carrier airline (KLM), as well as their inter-dependence, make research of the
inter-action of these firms a challenge.
The feasibility of alignment between elements of air transport, i.e. inter-dependent business
processes, is to be seen from the perspective at KLM and AAS. It is necessary that insight is
obtained in the manner by which these aligned relationships can realize the gains as
described in the previous texts above. After defining the benefits of alignment of business
28 R.P. Perié
processes at KLM and AAS, it will be feasible to also provide a way ahead for the
implementation of alignment to realize its potential for their mutual benefit.
Based upon observation of members of staff at KLM and AAS, as well as by OC&C Strategy
Consultants (OC&C, 25 April 2006, p.10), it is perceived that a lack of mutual understanding
or appreciation of most capabilities exists within the respective firms. Derived from this
perception, it seems that within this segment of the national aviation industry knowledge
regarding the value of and manner by which feasible gains can be achieved, e.g. by alignment,
is insufficiently accessible to relevant managerial levels.
Albeit that these entities, i.e. KLM and AAS, engage in various forms of non-formalized
irregular co-operation a lack of integral knowledge of the partner’s organization precludes
any structured co-operation or alignment. This encourages appropriate research to benefit not
only this segment of industry but also to gain knowledge regarding alignment as such
research has neither been carried out in this country nor in a similar manner elsewhere.
KLM and AAS compete on the European and global stage. This brings an additional
management challenge. The business practices, policies and strategies deployed around
Europe and the world require managerial and probably legal consistency but also need to be
reflective of the different standards, norms and behaviors of the various countries (Gibbs,
2006, p.15). Firms, such as KLM and AAS, are confronted with the need to compete in the
market by aligning their business processes with intermediaries in a channel that is
characterized by increased management complexity. This complexity is created by the
perceived need to market through various channel structures and do so on a global and/or
European basis (Gibbs, 2006). This management task provides the initiative for this research.
In order to realize an effective inter-organizational relationship KLM and AAS need to know
the Factors for Alignment of their inter-dependent business processes. This alignment will
reduce the integral cost of hub airport operations, increase joint revenues and improve their
mutual image in order to not only gain but also maintain their competitive advantage. The
constant renewal of products, processes, markets and organization enables firms to stay
ahead of competition (de Man, 1996, p.9).
Airlines and airports, such as KLM and AAS, focus upon the same targets with quality of
service for passengers being a defining variable of the dyad. In aviation, quality is mainly a
function of punctuality, reliability and service. International airlines tend to be rather
homogenous in terms of sales, service and transportation quality in the air. Competition is
more likely to be seen in terms of service on the ground and in this sense airports and airlines
are partners in these activities (Ringbeck et al., 2005), such as KLM and AAS. The
objectives on the ground of KLM and AAS are inter-dependent to a large extent, which
provides a foundation for alignment of their business processes. Derived from their common
objectives, the next step would be to consider the processes which can be identified as of a
mutual nature, i.e. inter-dependent. This defines their business process dyads.
The relationship between KLM and AAS was informally based upon shared objectives from
their early days. Their relationship is now based upon a shared Main Port vision and strategy
by Schiphol Group, KLM and LVNL (2006). The main objectives of their Main Port
development, which have been identified by KLM and AAS are:
• Strengthening worldwide network destinations and frequencies;
• Competitive airport visit costs, reliable and fast handling accessibility;
R.P. Perié 29
• Competitive region for work and living, accessibility and strengthening Amsterdam
as a destination;
• International competitive business area development of infrastructure and area
development as illustrated in Figure 1-6.
Figure 1-6: Mainport development objectives of KLM and AAS

(Schiphol Group, KLM and LVNL, 2006)
The objectives of Figure 1-6 are relevant for the interaction between KLM and AAS. The
interaction between the four objectives of Figure 1-6 has lead to a continuous cycle with 6
concrete goals:
• Competitive position of the hub and network carrier;
• Available physical and environmental capacity;
• Demand for air transport supply network;
• Economic activities and employment;
• Attractiveness towards international companies;
• Competitive position of The Netherlands, as illustrated in Figure 1-7.
30 R.P. Perié
Figure 1-7: Mainport interaction cycle of this research

The competitive position of AAS and KLM in this research is the area of interest, which is
specifically based upon the bottom left half of this figure (AAS, KLM and LVNL, 2005).
Derived from these three goals (Competitive position etc., Available capacity etc., Demand
for network etc.), inter-dependent business processes are identified. With that perspective,
getting to know the Factors for Alignment of specific dyadic business processes of KLM and
AAS is the focus of this research. These are influenced by many direct and indirect processes;
some of them are shown in the following diagram, Figure 1-8, based upon Figure 1-6.
Processes of interest for this research are e.g. Infrastructure planning, Capacity planning,
Sustainability and Environment Management and Network Planning.
Figure 1-8: Processes and aspects influencing the interaction cycle

Inter-dependent business process dyads at the strategic, tactical and operational level are
selected for analysis based upon the previous figure as well as research regarding the
perceived inter-dependency at KLM of AAS by Rennestraum (2007). Examples of obvious
inter-dependent business processes are network planning and infrastructure planning (Figure
1-8, Figure 1-10 and Figure 1-11), where sub-processes and tasks are clear and defined.
R.P. Perié 31
These processes are nearly impossible to carry out in isolation of the airline or airport
respectively.
Since the summer of 2004, the Cooperative Platform for Innovation at the Main Port
Amsterdam (“Samenwerkingsverband Innovatieve Mainport”, or SIM) - including the Chief
Executive Officers of KLM and AAS - strives to contribute to the realization of the goals of
the Main Port. One of the goals is improvement of capacity and accessibility of the main port,
at the so-called “airside”, i.e. the area where aircraft take-off, land, taxi and are prepared for a
flight.
Three of the eight research themes of SIM are (SIM Research Program, September 2005):
• Optimization of the value chain;
• Environmental capacity; and
• Creation of stakeholder support.
With respect to the optimization of the value chain, listed above, this innovation platform
expects that “specific business processes of KLM and AAS, …, can be aligned” (SIM
Research Program, 2005, p.7). Similar alignment is also expected by the joint presentation of
KLM and AAS regarding environmental capacity as well as creation of stakeholder support.
The improvements within the value chain that are feasible, according to the research program
of the SIM platform, can be determined by answering the following questions:
• “Goals: what are the wishes and requirements regarding improvements to the entire
process of passenger as well as cargo movement?
• Selection: Which sub-processes could be eligible for integration, i.e. alignment?
• Design: (step 1) which information-exchange between business processes and
individual actors is required; (step 2) which alternatives are feasible for newly
integrated - i.e. aligned - business processes; (step 3) which supporting processes and
tools should be developed?
• Evaluation: How do the designs contribute to improved results of the entire process
of passenger as well as cargo movement (cost-benefit analysis)?”
The eligibility for alignment, mentioned above in the question selection, is determined by
those business processes of KLM and AAS which jointly can contribute to maintenance of
the competitive position of the Main Port, as stated in the previous sub-paragraph (see Figure
1-6).
On the one hand the existing relation in general between airlines and airports and on the other
hand the corporate expectations of KLM and AAS as context as well as corporate interest, as
described above, lead to determination of the research field described in paragraph 1.3.
1.2.3 RESEARCH WITHIN STRATEGY OF AEROSPACE MANAGEMENT AND

OPERATIONS
Research within the department of Aerospace Management and Operations (AMO) is
focused upon understanding processes in the AMO profiles of Supply Chain Management,
32 R.P. Perié
Aviation as well as Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO). There are three basic elements
in the research of AMO:
• integration of parties involved in the same supply chain;
• looking through the eyes of the customer;
• open innovation.
The integrative part within AMO stems from the belief that working together delivers value
to all parties in the chain, more than the sum of the optimized steps in the chain. Going for
maximum gain in one step of the chain might add so many costs in other steps in the supply
chain that the total value becomes negative. Specifically, AMO carries out research for the
processes in the chain that add value, if possible with several parties in the chain.
The value can best be assessed by what is called in AMO “looking through the eyes of the
customer”, meaning that value is only generated if activities of supplier A generate value
towards the markets of the customer of A, i.e. the next step in the chain.
The third element, open innovation, represents the belief within AMO that sharing
knowledge is the multiplying enabler. Sharing generates incoming cash flow in a very early
stage of an innovation, thus reducing the investments required as well as enlarging the
opportunities in the markets.
AMO research projects aim to enlarge the knowledge of processes and process integration in
the aviation sector, commencing in The Netherlands and subsequently expanding that
knowledge internationally. The AMO research strategy describes several desired end results:
• Models for collaboration in supply chain, with value creation as the ultimate goal
of the chain as a whole;
• Knowing the factors that explain, influence or improve the alignment between
partners in a supply chain;
• Models to make the supply chain lean;
• Integrate processes in supply chain that facilitate the alignment in those supply
chains.
The relationship of airlines and airports is complex, and is located within a complex
environment. Within aviation related AMO research, projects contribute to the understanding
of the inter-dependency of airlines and airports, at the level of the firm as well as at business
process level. The factors that explain the inter-dependency should enable parties to align
themselves or their business processes. Also alignment should lead to more added value
throughout the dyad of airlines and airports, both for parties involved as for the traveller.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH FIELD

The elements of the scope of the research field that contribute to the determination of Factors
for Alignment are described in the following paragraph.
The scope of research commences with a description of a model of the value chain by the
required inter-actions leading from co-operation through coordination to collaboration which
R.P. Perié 33
is considered as partnership enhancing C³ behavior. This C³ behavior reduces the potentially

negative behavior spiral influences within long-term close collaboration. Included in C³
behavior are Factors for Alignment, e.g. synchronizing objectives, pursuing joint approaches
and promoting joint measures. Management of the value chain is to identify opportunities
beyond the immediate boundaries of entities within the aligned relationship. Resources in
one part of the value chain can be used in another part. Formation of inter-organizational
relationships (IOR) including alignment leads to gaining and sustaining competitive
advantage for the participating firms e.g. KLM and AAS. Management of the Factors for
Alignment in an alignment of KLM and AAS is a key aspect. Management of inter-
dependent relations is difficult but the need for strategic alignment is the main driver thereof.
Any firm needs to look beyond its boundaries and must seek to develop its competitive
advantage by engaging in IOR by at least alignment of its business processes.
The overall level of alignment between firms can be better captured on a part-level, i.e. the
business process, rather than the compound inter-organizational level. The potential business
processes that can be managed to mutual benefit are those processes which are inter-
dependent, i.e. demonstrate dependence upon the other party or are partially or completely
redundant. An aligned firm including its business processes encourages behavior such as
innovation and risk taking because individual action is directed at achieving mutually agreed
high-level objectives. In an un-aligned firm this leads to chaos.
The rationale for the selection of the inter-dependent business processes to be researched is
provided in sub-paragraph 1.3.9. The conclusion of this paragraph is described in the
research field at sub-paragraph 1.3.10.
1.3.1 VALUE CHAIN AND APPLICATION OF WILLIAMSON’S ORGANIZATIONAL

FAILURE FRAMEWORK
Wilding and Humphries (2006) have specifically tested the well-accepted Williamson’s
economic Organizations Failure Framework (1975) as a theoretical model through which
long-term collaborative relationships can be viewed. Within the value chain the need for
much closer, long-term relationships is increasing due to supplier rationalization and
globalization and more information regarding these inter-actions is required (see Figure 1-5).
Their research used a specific theoretical model to achieve a broad understanding of business
relationships within a single, albeit very large organization.
In research by Wilding and Humphries (2006), they found that strong balancing, positive
business drivers were likely to produce examples of relationship building, specific
investments, co-operative behavior, open communications and a desire to reduce the burden
of governance through more equitable long-term arrangements. Wilding and Humphries
(2006) suggest that co-operative, coordinating and collaborative behaviors involve “working
together” jointly to bring resources into a required relationship to achieve effective
operations into harmony with the strategies and/or objectives of the parties involved thus
resulting in mutual benefit. Humphries and Wilding (2006) posed the view, based upon
research by Spekman et al. (1998) as shown in the Figure 1-9, that a shift in the level of
intensity between partners is necessary. Co-operation, where firms exchanged essential
information and engaged supplier/customer long-term contracts, was the “threshold” level of
interaction. The next was coordination, where both workflow and information were engaged
to make many of the traditional linkages between and among trading parties seamless.
34 R.P. Perié
Collaborative behavior engaged partners in joint planning and processes beyond levels
reached in less intense trading relationships. The behaviors of co-operation, coordination and
collaboration lead to different forms of alignment that all create mutual benefit for the
participating partners.
Figure 1-9: Value Chain Transition from Adversarial to Collaborative Relationships

(adapted from Spekman et al., 1998)
Wilding and Humphries (2006) felt that it was justifiable to describe a form of partnership-
enhancing behavior (C³ behavior) that combined all three. They were surprised that C³ (co-
operative, coordinating, collaborative) played an important part in counteracting the
potentially negative behavior spiral influences within long-term, close collaborations.
Exploration of the theoretical framework dimensions using other relational variables such as
trust, commitment and long-term orientation could cross-tabulate and extend their findings.
Note: Words in italics indicate an emphasis related to possible Factors for Alignment which are determined in
Chapter 3.
Wilding and Humphries (2006) demonstrated that their theoretical model could provide
powerful insight into the research subject and especially revealed the important part played
by co-operation, co-ordination and collaboration (C³ behavior) in reducing the inherently
negative effects of close proximity and limited choice relationships.
The prime contribution of that exploratory research is the exposure of relationship dynamics
within a large sample of long-term, collaborative value chain business dyads using an
integrated application of Williamson’s Organizations Failure Framework. Managers can
reduce sources of frustration that generate negative behaviors by taking joint actions. Central
to achieving this is C³ behavior were setting synchronized objectives, pursuing joint
approaches to service and product delivery, lowering joint costs and risks and promoting
joint measures to support the growth of trust appear to be the best ways of halting negative
behavior spirals. These are all Factors for Alignment, to be taken into account during the
research described in Chapters 3 and 4.
1.3.2 VALUE CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Related to optimization of the value chain on page 32, The Netherlands Government wishes
to strengthen the effectiveness of the Main Port value chain (Ministry of Transport et al.,
R.P. Perié 35
2006-2007). This includes the long-term development of the Main Port strategy as well as
selective measures regarding on the one hand traffic with a high economic-societal value and
on the other hand adequate noise and environmental aims and achievements. To these ends,
specific business processes of interest addressing these aspects at KLM and AAS are
identified in sub-paragraph 1.3.9, Process Selection, such as network planning and
environmental capacity.
Tight alignment between airlines and airports is rare. It is of interest to research the
relationship throughout the value chain of the dyad that exists between the two firms, i.e.
KLM and AAS (see Figure 1-5). In sub-paragraph 1.2.2 and figure 1-8 examples of obvious
inter-dependent business processes are mentioned as well as optimization of the value chain.
Before entering into an alignment-agreement, it is necessary to identify appropriate potential
joint activities (Auerbach and Koch, 2007). An analysis of the value chains of the dyad, i.e.
KLM and AAS, is an approach to identify the common and different activities of these
partners. For this the value chains developed by Albers et al. (2005) provides a matrix of
possible fields for alignment such as the examples of capacity management and planning,
network and route development, and Main Port image, see Figure 1-10 and Figure 1-11. In
general, alignment between partners, i.e. KLM and AAS, is feasible at the level of supporting
activities (Auerbach and Koch, 2007).
The objective in this research is to determine Factors for Alignment for inter-dependent
business processes within the value system of the customer-supplier relationship of KLM and
AAS. These inter-dependent business processes are defined at sub-paragraph 1.3.9, Process
Selection. This has determined the processes for which alignment is deemed feasible. It is
either logical due to similarity of objectives or the fact that they depend on each other, i.e.
influence is experienced as inter-dependency. Inter-dependency of business processes leads
to various forms of mutually beneficial management thereof. The selected business processes
are a means for research to establish the Factors for Alignment.
Figure 1-10: Value Chain Airports

(Albers et al., 2005)
36 R.P. Perié
Figure 1-11: Value Chain Airlines

(Albers et al., 2005)
In order to promote positive change throughout the value chain and foster alignment by
developing fitting processes, shifting roles and building personal relationships, manager and
worker buy-in and commitment are required. Creating this commitment is achieved by
involving employees in the change process itself and not just informing them regarding the
implementation thereof (Vereecke et al., 2006)
The concept of a value-adding partnership (VAP) (Johnston and Lawrence, 1988, p.95-96) is
the understanding that each player in the VAP-chain, e.g. within KLM and AAS, has a stake
in the other’s success. Managers look for opportunities beyond their boundaries in an aligned
relationship (Spekman et al., 1998). They look for ways the resources at one part of the VAP
could be used in another part. When all partners are strong, the entire aligned VAP-chain can
stand up to the toughest of competitors, integrated or not.
Commitment for mutually beneficial alignment and the required structure of the management
form or organization of inter-organizational management are inversely related functionalities.
That implies lower commitment requires more need for structuring. More commitment
implies less need for structure, i.e. more flexibility.
1.3.3 INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

From a strategic perspective, the basic motive for forming an inter-organizational
relationship (IOR), including alignment (Spekman et al., 1998), is gaining and sustaining
competitive advantage for the participating firms (Das and Teng, 1999). This over-riding
R.P. Perié 37
objective can be differentiated into a variety of sub motives, e.g. cost and risk reduction and
the access to new markets (Albers, 2000; Ebers, 1997 as cited by Albers et al., 2005).
Extensive research was carried out by Dr. Richard K. Gibbs (2006). That research is
concerned with understanding mediating effects of attributes of relational exchange on both
tangible and affective outcomes of a manufacturer – intermediary relationship, when subject
to different contextual conditions. That research argues that IOR represent a potential source
of competitive advantage and, specifically, that it is the manner in which these relationships
are managed that enables a realization of above average returns for a firm (Gibbs, 2006, p.1).
A competitive advantage enables a firm to enjoy above average returns, growth rates higher
than the market or industry growth, or to sustain a dominant position. The potential source of
this competitive advantage has fuelled academic interest. Solutions have been sought in a
firm’s ability to exploit a differentiated offering in a niche or vertical segments, to capitalize
on a cost structure (Porter), to utilize the unique resources that it has at its disposal (Kay and
Grant) or to release and realize the skills and capabilities of its employees and processes
(Hamel and Prahalad, all five authors cited by Gibbs, 2006, p.14).
It is this management task that provides the initiative for also this research (Gibbs, 2006,
p.15). In order to realize the prospect of competitive advantage or to create value-laden
offering through an aligned IOR, firms need a better understanding of what determines a
successful relationship (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). These determinants of success are
themselves influenced by the structure of the channel relationship and the geo-political
location of the intermediary (Gibbs, 2006).
Firms in the information technology sector have long recognized the importance of forming
IOR to ensure market coverage, service provision and distribution strategies. The aim is to
provide increased cost effectiveness and improved coverage through the use of multiple
routes to market (Gibbs, 2006).
The balance of deciding in favor of a form of an alignment should be based upon an
evaluation of the advantages outweighing the disadvantages. Alignment is to be derived from
the strategy of the firm or combination of firms wishing to partner. The decision to align
leads to a mutually beneficial agreement regarding sharing of complementary resources,
knowledge and capabilities with the objective of an enhanced competitive position.
At the strategic management level, different choices can be made with respect to the
introduction of tight or looser alignment for selected business processes as a result of a
systematic approach to evaluate alternative forms of synergy based on mutually agreed upon
joint strategic guidelines.
Today’s firms are capable to extend over their organizational boundaries to become part of
various networks (De Man et. al, 2001). Through technological innovation and globalization
management paradigms change, i.e. span of control to span of communication, and by new
communication and distribution technologies firms do not operate (any more) by themselves.
They create in ever greater intensity co-operative ventures of various kinds to attain strategic
flexibility and competitive advantage (De Man et. al, 2001). This aim is attained by firms by
interaction with other firms through information-exchange and aligned or integrated business
processes (Pijpers, 2005).
38 R.P. Perié
This research regards Factors for Alignment between firms. An alignment is created by firms
based upon lengthy collaboration and inter-dependent adaptations, e.g. KLM and AAS. This
makes these firms depend upon each other, and are capable at the same time to compete
together with other networks (De Man et. al, 2001).
Alignments constitute the basic social form that permits inter-organizational interactions of
exchange, concerted action, and joint production. Networks are unbounded or bounded
clusters of firms that, by definition, are no-hierarchical collectives of legally separate units
(Alter and Hage, 1993). The aviation sector in The Netherlands can be defined as a network
of firms with a common goal, called the Main Port. It implies that participating firms intend
to maintain the competitive advantage of AAS, including its (inter-) national business
opportunities in relation to other metropolitan areas in North-west Europe (Schiere, 2006).
Dyer and Hatch (2004) state that partnering, through alignment, with vendors and sharing
valuable knowledge with them through organized networks can be a sustainable source of
competitive advantage. “Our suppliers are critical to our success. We must help them to be
the best”, stated by a Toyota director and cited by Dyer and Singh (2004). These authors
continued by stating that Toyota developed an infrastructure and a variety of inter-
organizational processes that facilitate the transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge
within its supplier network. Dyer and Singh (2004) emphasize that explicit knowledge is easy
to codify and transfer, including its integrity. Tacit knowledge, as it is complex and difficult
to codify, involves experiential learning but most likely generates competitive advantages
that are sustainable. As firms form IOR for both offensive and defensive reasons, this should
become apparent from their strategic goals.
To guide the resource allocation process, any complex firm has an explicit understanding of
various forms of IOR sought for its mix of activities or processes. Although synergy is not an
aim of this research, it should be known as it is defined as the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts (Dwyer and Tanner, 2006, p.159). It is also the co-operative interaction by
alignment among groups, especially among (acquired) subsidiaries or (merged) parts of a
corporation, which creates an enhanced combined effect. Teece (as cited by Spekman et al.,
1998) discussed mutually beneficial gains that neither partner would have been able to
achieve individually. Hamel (as cited by Spekman et al., 1998) argued that what partly drives
the decision to ally is the importance of deriving value from the partnership. Such value can
not only be gained in monetary value but also be derived from systems and know-how
(Dwyer and Tanner, 2006). Management can position its properties in unique markets and
deliver satisfying experiences.
Concluding, this research considers that in this segment of the aviation industry the creation
of an alignment is a competitive advantage. The management of their inter-dependent
relation by Factors for Alignment is a key aspect.
1.3.4 MANAGEMENT OF INTER-DEPENDENCE

Dalbokar and Neeley (1998) find that managers see business relationships through the
metaphor of war. The concept of strategy is derived from their philosophy and study of
military action. The purpose of competition changes by accepting that business is in a
R.P. Perié 39
complex web of relationships. The aim switches from wishing to see opponents driven out of
business, to one of survival. Profits become the means to survive rather than the short-term
end.
In such an outlook the manner Dalbokar and Neeley (1998) relate to suppliers, partners,
competitors and customers determines the strength of the position in the world economy’s
web. Since there is dependency upon those relationships to survive and thrive, getting them
right is the first step in creating modern strategies for e.g. KLM and AAS. Moreover these
authors argue that dynamic markets require constant evaluation and modification of
relationships and interactions.
An analysis of each relationship by assessing, e.g. the temporal perspective, goal orientation
and power relationship, is required to establish the place in the economic web according to
Dalbokar and Neeley (1998). This allows decisions about whether the type of relationships
enjoyed, fits with the business objectives and current market environment. When the relation
to the firm’s strategy and environment is determined, it is feasible to develop a manner by
which these relationships can be shifted. Management of inter-dependent relations is difficult.
However, the need for strategic alignment is the main driver. These authors find that it is
crucial to focus on those areas where the firm has control and especially those areas where
the power relationship makes the firm weak.
Finally, Dalbokar and Neeley (1998) emphasize that the dynamic nature of inter-dependent
relationships implies the need to react quickly to significant changes in the markets driven by
forces beyond the control of the firm, i.e. technological change, government interference, or
competition for e.g. KLM and AAS.
Rather than bemoan the fact of dependency, firms should seek to set that dependency in the
context of an overall relationship strategy as their competiveness is dependent upon the
manner of their alignment.
1.3.5 COMPETITIVENESS IS DEPENDENT UPON ALIGNMENT

Competitive pressures of a global market, rapid technological change and consumers with
greater choice and higher expectation, reduce the likelihood that a firm acting independently
can provide its customers with a value-laden offering that significantly outshines and
outperforms its competition (Gibbs, 2006). As a consequence a firm needs to look beyond its
boundaries and must therefore seek to develop its competitive advantage by engaging in
inter-organizational relationships (IOR), by at least alignment of its business processes.
Most firms succeed only if others also succeed. Business is alignment when it comes to
creating a pie and competition when it comes to dividing it up (Brandenburger and Nalebuff,
1996). You can compete without having to kill the opposition. If fighting to the death
destroys the pie, there will be nothing left to capture: that is lose – lose. By the same token
you can align without having to ignore your self-interest. It is not smart to create a pie that
you cannot capture: that is lose – win. The goal is to do well for oneself. Some times that
comes at the expense of others, sometimes not.
An essential commonality of a dyadic business relationship perspective such as KLM and

AAS is consideration of the inter-dependencies that exist between firms doing business with
one another and the resultant need for alignment (Anderson et al., 1994). The importance of
alignment for competitive advantage of the firms is a subject of increasing attention. Motives
and the resulting behaviors are situational driven, found by Griffin, Salanik and Pfeffer (as
40 R.P. Perié
cited by Markóczy, 2004). In this view the influence of the situation on attitudes, motivations
and the resulting behavior is so strong that individual differences do not really matter.
Deutsch found (as cited by Markóczy, 2004) that alignment depends upon the relationship of
the goals of participants in a given situation. A situation can be aligned if the participants are
positively inter-dependent in the sense that a person can not realize his or her goals unless the
goals of inter-dependent others are also realized. In other words, aligning means aiming to
maximize joint results. Business practitioners and academic researchers have argued that
competitiveness of firms is contingent upon a firm’s willingness and ability to align
(Andersson et al., 2007). Spekman et al. (1998) concluded that a strategic alliance is a close,
long-term, mutually beneficial agreement between two or more partners in which resources,
knowledge, and capabilities are shared with the objective of enhancing the competitive
position of each partner. The underlying driver for the formation of alignment is the need to
control uncertainty, as much as possible (Andersson et al., 2007). The process for alignment
is encouraged by the realization that it provides opportunities that might be unavailable to
each of the partners, if they choose to stand alone. The assumption is that a firm functions in
the context of inter-dependencies that affect its development.
According to results of research by Tsupari et al. (2004), it was estimated that partnerships
strengthen their competitive power. Partnerships involving core business activities are
estimated as having a slightly more affect on their competitive power than partnerships
involving e.g. marketing and R&D activities.
Dyer and Singh (1998) argued that an increasingly important unit of analysis for
understanding competitive advantage is the relationship between firms in supply or value
chains and identification of potential sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage
by alignment. Their model illustrated in Figure 1-12 is translated to create the focus for this
research upon Factors for Alignment.
• Relation specific assets Dedicated resources;

• Knowledge sharing routines Learning & training;
• Complementary resources and capabilities Structural and cultural fit;
• Effective governance Cooperative objectives;
• Ability to employ self-enforcement etc. Attitude and integrity;
• Ability to indentify complementariness Mutual dependence.
R.P. Perié 41
Figure 1-12: Determinants of Inter-organizational Competitive Advantage

(Dyer and Singh, 1998)
Creation of synergy effects through input of complementary resources is the aim (Andersson
et al., 2007). The complementary strengths and efforts of the aligned partners add up to the
value chain that can produce a more competitive end result. The other alternative is when the
partners are providing similar inputs to the partnership. The partners pool resources, and the
aim is to achieve risk reduction and save on costs through joint activities (Thompson, 1967).
In a partnership the actors have more trust for each other and the alignment involves
activities, where there is a need of enough commitment. Easton and Araujo (1992) express
alignment as: “when two or more parties have objectives, which are mutually dependent (i.e.
reciprocal inter-dependent)” (Thompson, 1967). The extent of dependence can though be of
a different kind, depending upon which kind of aligned activities that are involved.
The benefit to be gained from alignment is often de raison d’être for the relationship.
Alignment includes some kind of adaptation (Andersson et al., 2007). According to Dubois
and Hakansson (1997) adaptations are a necessity for maintaining or developing a
relationship. The motivation for adaptive behavior is more significant if the difference
between parties is large, i.e. the adaptation will be in direct proportion to the differences that
42 R.P. Perié
exist between the parties (Gadde and Hakansson, 1993). Adaptation (e.g. Cooperation
Experience, Learning and Training) can be seen as an active strategic investment into the
relationship with another firm (Hagberg and Andersson, 2006).
Earlier research by Kalwani and Narayandas (1995) has indicated that suppliers maintaining
long-term relationships find that such relationships are more rewarding compared to those
suppliers that use a transactional approach to servicing customers. Supplier firms in long-
term relationships (e.g. Mind-set, Cooperation Objectives, Mutual Dependence, Attitude, and
Social Network Development) achieve higher profitability by differentially reducing their
discretionary expenses such as selling, general, and administrative overhead.
Closeness in the relationship will create an atmosphere of trust and mutual dependence. The
activities carried out can be derived from a buyer’s need for external resources. In order to
make the relationship work, the inter-acting actors must invest in the aligned relationship
leading to the creation of adaptations. In summary, according to Andersson et al. (2007), the
outcome of the aligned relationship will be the perceived co-operation value both for the
buyer and supplier. The perceived alignment value is derived from the factors co-operation
closeness, adaptations and activities.
The most important issue is the value created for the inter-acting parties, especially in the
long run (Andersson et al., 2007). This statement is similar to Teece (as cited by Spekman et
al., 1998) that value is created through synergy as the partners achieve mutually beneficial
gains that neither would have been able to achieve individually. Indeed Hamel (as cited by
Spekman et al., 1998) argues that what partly drives the decision to ally is the importance of
deriving value from the partnership. This should outweigh the loss of the firm’s autonomy.
The closeness of the alignment shapes the atmosphere and creates possibilities for the future,
common activities and the adaptations made to show commitment to the relationship.
Recognition of inter-dependence implies understanding for the need for alignment. The
recognition of the need for alignment implies recognition of existing misalignment or a lack
of alignment. With recognition of their inter-dependence, partners exchange resources. To
bring about alignment, the partners must also recognize that the benefits of joint activities
and shared resources are of great importance and outweigh the costs and loss of autonomy.
When choosing a partner for alignment, firms look for similarities before they make the
choice (Freytag and Ritter, 2005). All connections to other actors in a network are filled with
opportunities and access to resources and knowledge, formed by complex inter-actions,
adaptations and investments within and between the firms over time (Hakansson and Ford,
2002). All of the above mentioned forms of working together e.g. alliance, partnerships, co-
operation etc. implies the need for alignment.
The manner by which firms come to an agreement for alignment and maintain this alignment
requires understanding of the related aspects of dyadic inter-action.
R.P. Perié 43
1.3.6 ASPECTS OF DYADIC INTER-ACTION

A number of critical aspects regarding the inter-action in dyads in the marketplace are
described below in this sub-paragraph.
In many markets, contracts specify traders’ obligations imprecisely and trading relations are
riddled with informal agreements and unwritten codes of conduct. Third parties cannot
enforce such relational or implicit contracts because, typically, outsiders are unable to verify
if contractual obligations have been met (Brown et al., 2004). Traders are very much
concerned about the identity of their trading partners, if third party enforcement is ruled out.
They prefer to trade exclusively with the same partner for an extended period of time with
the consequence that bilateral relationships thoroughly dominate the market, e.g. KLM and
AAS. Competition seems to have little impact upon contract terms because the gains from
trade are shared equally among the parties and long-term relationships are more profitable
than are the short-term ones for both sides of the market. Brown et al. (2004) show that the
seeds for successful long-term relations are planted at the very beginning of an aligned
relationship.
The findings of Brown et al. (2004) on the bilateralization of markets can also be viewed as
an example of what Williamson coined as the “fundamental transformation”. Williamson
forcefully argued that, in the presence of relationship-specific investments, trading relations
that are subject to outside competition ex-ante become insulated from outside competition
ex-post. The parties can create higher gains from trade due to relationship-specific
investments if they stay together, i.e. remained aligned e.g. KLM and AAS, than if they are
separate, inducing a bilateralization of the relation and a weakening of the impact of outside
competition on the terms of the trade. According to Brown et al. (2004), several aspects
foster long-term relations, e.g. the longer the relationship between a worker and a firm has
lasted, the higher the effort level the firm expects of the worker. Indeed, the worker’s actual
effort is higher in a relationship that has lasted longer. This indicates that the value of an
employment or aligned relation increases with its length.
The manner by which firms come to an agreement for alignment, i.e. commitment as well as
Competence Fit, Structure Fit and Culture Fit, is of relevance for the form of control to be
implemented. A firm which has more to lose than its prospective partner, i.e. a greater risk,
would seek more safeguards in the agreement for alignment or partnering. The degree, to
which the risk caused by the commitment is a problem, will be affected by their respective
relative commitments, the absolute level of each firm’s commitment and the specificity of
resources that the two parties could commit to the cooperative venture. This leads to the
formation of a business process dyad.
1.3.7 BUSINESS PROCESS DYADS

Brown and Eisenhardt (1998, p.19) state that usually in business, comparison of
organizational structures is at the level of the firm. Firms are composed of numerous parts or
agents, in complexity parlance or businesses, in managerial terms. It is important to focus on
the concept that a firm is an inter-dependent group of products and services, each playing a
distinctive and supportive role (Day, 1977). Each of these parts can have a distinct level of C3
44 R.P. Perié
behavior (see sub-paragraph 1.3.1) with parts of another organization, e.g. KLM and AAS.
The overall level of alignment between organizations can therefore be better captured on a
part-level, i.e. the business process, rather than the compound inter-organizational level.
Regarding business process modeling from a practical perspective, Bider (2003) states that
research recommends the following principles:
• There is no universal method of business process modeling suitable for all possible
projects in this field;
• There are far too many approaches and tools to consider all of them one by one to
determine the needs of a particular project; some classification of methods and tools
is required to initially select a particular class and subsequently a method and tool of
that class;
• To be able to match the needs of a modeling project against methods and tools, the
characteristic features of a particular project require to be identified; Bider (2003)
believes that analysis of modeling projects can be done in three “dimensions”, i.e.:
1. Properties of business processes to be modeled;
2. Characteristics of the modeling environment;
3. Intended use of the model.
The focus of this research is upon the unique relationship of KLM and AAS, in order to
determine the Factors for Alignment of their dyadic business processes.
A business process is a lateral or horizontal organizational form that encapsulates the inter-
dependence of tasks, roles, people, departments and functions required to provide a customer
with a product or service (Aubert et al, 2003). It consists of flows and activities. An activity
takes an input, adds value to it and provides output to an internal or external customer. Flows
consist of goods, e.g. materials, components and forms, as well as data about goods.
Hammer & Champy (1994) defined business processes as a set of partially ordered activities
aimed at reaching a goal, i.e. value to the customer. This definition can be applied to
industrial processes that produce some kind of “value”, and also to support processes.
Support processes are those processes that ensure that the main processes have enough
resources to work problem free. These definitions are used in this research.
Pröpper (2000) defines coordination as “… the process of conscious alignment of individual

and/or common plans (activities, means, objectives) of two or more firms.” De Man et.al
(2001) reasons - contrary to Pröpper - that “coordination in a network is an important means
for - and not a form of - coordination necessary for attainment of joint objectives. A network
is created to attain competitive advantage over comparable networks” (De Man et. al, 2001).
The potential business processes that could be managed to mutual benefit are those processes
which are inter-dependent, i.e. demonstrate dependence on the other party or are partially or
completely redundant. This excludes those processes that relate only to one or the other firm
or to an independent external party. This research addresses those processes which are inter-
dependent or redundant, as defined in Figure 1-13:
R.P. Perié 45
Dependency: Both firms have processes in which activities lead to possibly different
goals but the results largely influence the other business in a positive or
negative manner;
Inter-dependency: Mutually dependent or depending upon each other in a reciprocal
relation. Dyadic relations are considered to be inter-dependent.
Redundancy: Processes of the firms that work in the same area on similar activities but
not in unison; there is overlap.
In Figure 1-13, D stands for Dependency, I stand for Inter-dependency and R stands for
Redundancy. The two arrows demonstrating Dependency signify that each firm contributes
to the partnering firm. The inter-dependent processes contribute in an agreed manner to the
partnering firm.
KLM I AAS
Processes Processes
Figure 1-13: Types of Business Processes Managed Jointly for Mutual Benefit
Defined by Webster’s and Oxford’s Dictionary, a dyad in sociological terms is “two persons
in a continuing relationship in which they act upon each other”. In addition a dyad is “a
group of two, a pair, and a two-fold entity”. Dyadic is derived from dyad and is
philosophically defined as “designating or pertaining to a relationship between exactly two
entities, or predicate expressing such a relationship.” It is the smallest unit of communication
in relationships between people and firms, e.g. employer – employee etc.
The business processes in this research are not compared with each other but that this
research is focused upon alignment of similar business processes in the inter-dependent
relations between firms, i.e. KLM and AAS. Dyads of these similar business processes are
the object of research.
In paragraph 1.2.2, above, it is noted that in step 1 (Design) the question is posed “which
information-exchange between business processes and individual actors is required”. In this
research, aspects of information-exchange are considered to be part of the business process.
1.3.8 BUSINESS PROCESS ALIGNMENT

Axelsson and Easton (1992) maintain that alignment of firms is a way to create a more
effective network. The alignment is focused upon the support processes of the partnering
46 R.P. Perié
firms. When turbulent situations occur, it is proposed to create multi-disciplinary project

groups that aim to promote further alignment. To make the coordination a success,
information exchange is an important aspect. Alignment of firms demands not only
coordination but also information (Axelsson and Easton (1992).
The performance and effectiveness of organizations operating in a network, by whatever

criteria these are assessed, become dependent not only upon how well the organization itself
performs in the aligned interaction with its direct counterparts, but also on how these
counterparts in turn manage their relationships with third parties (Hakansson and Snehota,
2006, p.261). An organization’s performance is therefore largely dependent upon whom it
interacts with. What is referred to the network model is the outcome of a fairly broad
research program dealing primarily with functioning of business markets which originated in
the mid 1970’s at the University of Uppsala (Hakansson and Snehota, 2006, p.259).
The inter-dependence of an organization on other entities makes it difficult to disconnect the

organization from its network, since a business organization without its interactive
environment loses its identity (Hakansson and Snehota 2006, p.261). It seems therefore
useful to adopt the concept of the context of an organization rather than its environment. The
context is enacted and it is created by the organization itself. The network model can be
summarized as follows:
• Business organizations often operate in a context in which their behavior is
conditioned by a limited number of counterparts, each of which is unique and
engaged in pursuing its own goals;
• In relation to these entities, an organization engages in continuous interactions that
constitute a framework for exchange processes. Relationships make it possible to
access and exploit the resources of other parties and link the parties’ activities
together;
• The distinctive capabilities of an organization are developed through its interactions
in the aligned relationships that it maintains with other parties. The identity of the
organization is thus created through relations with others;
• Since the other parties to the interaction also operate under similar conditions, an
organization’s performance is conditioned by the totality of the network as a context,
i.e. even by interdependencies among third parties (Hakansson and Snehota, 2006,
p.261).
The alignment of the elements strategy, environment or context, organizational capabilities,

organizational design and culture as well as leadership is crucial for organizational success
(Dyer and Singh, 1998) (see Figure 1-5). Aligned partners commit to longer term business
relationships and enabling relation specific investments that, in the absence of such co-
operation, would not have taken place. Furthermore it allows partners to combine their
distinct but complementary resources and capabilities through a variety of organizational
interfaces, potentially allowing creation of innovative products and solutions for their
customers. This contrasts to the separable technological and functional systems that are only
marginally combined in traditional arm’s length relationships. The combinations of resources
as well as relationship specific investments enable partners to extract relational profits from
their co-operation and gain competitive advantage in their industry.
R.P. Perié 47
Sharing investment costs can reduce financial risk (Albers et al., 2005, p.53). This can
involve lower capital expenditure per business partner in a project, and also lowers risk if
partners show a full commitment to the project. On the other hand, forms of working together
express a long-term commitment of e.g. the airline to the airport and vice versa. In this
research, AAS offers a safeguard for long-term traffic development and KLM can benefit
from this treatment and vice-versa.
Alignment of technical infrastructure e.g. infrastructure planning, as well as closer
coordination of operational procedures e.g. aircraft stand allocation, can reduce irregularities
and improve punctual departures (Albers et al., 2005, p.53). These measures represent
relationship-specific investments that are not costless and will not be borne by a partner
unless continued commitment can be assured. An aligned development has a strategic focus
on the core products or services of firms. Information exchange is an essential element within
the boundaries of a business process.
An organization is aligned when employees have a commonality of purpose, a shared vision,

and an understanding of how their personal roles support the overall strategy of the firm
(Kaplan and Norton, 2004). An aligned organization including its business processes
encourages behaviors such as innovation and risk taking because individual action is directed
at achieving mutually agreed high-level objectives. Encouraging and empowering individual
initiative in an unaligned organization leads to chaos, as the innovative risk takers pull the
organization in contradictory directions.
Achieving alignment is a two-step process. First management should regularly communicate
the high-level strategic objectives in ways that employees can understand. The goal of this
step is to create and maintain intrinsic motivation, to inspire employees to internalize the
firms’ values and objectives to help the organization to succeed. The second step is to have
employees set and adapt their own personal and team objectives aligned to the strategy. Also
incentives are to be established that publically reward employees when they meet personal,
departmental, business unit, and corporate targets.
When assessing process alignment, processes can cross various organizational boundaries
(Gibbs, 2006; De Man et al., 2001). A measure of process alignment is usable whether a
process in carried out within the boundaries of the firm or across multiple firms.
Alignment of specific inter-dependent business processes across organizational boundaries or
multiple organizations can be feasible as well as fruitful. Business process alignment
between two firms fits with the way in which inter-dependent organizations can strive to
realize improvement of effectiveness and efficiency.
Alignment of these business processes is achievable through alignment of their value chains
with the appropriate information flows. The level of alignment within the firm is at the level
of business processes.
The concept of establishing best practice frameworks has become a recognized management
approach in various and diverse areas. What are the consistent Factors for Alignment?
Business processes are defined by factors that determine the extent to which specific business
processes can be combined, integrated, or aligned with similar inter-dependent business
processes. The focus of this research is upon the determination of factors for dyadic
alignment of business processes.
48 R.P. Perié
After establishing business process alignment, selection of the processes eligible for such
alignment is required as “proof of the pudding is in eating it”.
1.3.9 PROCESS SELECTION

Research was carried out at KLM at the strategic and policymaking level regarding the
perceived feasibility of alignment between KLM and AAS (Rennestraum, 2007). This
research also addressed the awareness of employees of inter-dependency between KLM and
AAS. The consequences of various scenarios with respect to opportunities of benefiting from
this inter-dependence by alignment were described.
The awareness of inter-dependence at AAS with respect to KLM is not the result of similar
recent research as by Rennestraum (2007). It is, however, implicit in a joint document by
AAS, KLM and LVNL (2005).
In the research (Rennestraum, 2007) the value chain tool (Porter, 1985) was used for
comparison purposes at the dyadic business process level between KLM and AAS. Based
upon the objectives of KLM, the assumptions regarding the position of AAS in relation to
other hub-airports, and interaction-diagrams of the Main Port cycle as well as the aspects
influencing this cycle, more tangible processes were considered for co-operation or
alignment. This led to a selection of 20 different business processes which were dependent
upon the other partner or redundant to a certain extent.
Process selection for further research was derived from a survey making use of
knowledgeable KLM staff (Rennestraum, 2007, p.39).
processes of KLM and AAS at different levels of decision making contributing to the
creation of competitive advantage. Due to interest of this academic research as well as the
interest of KLM and AAS, the following business processes were selected based upon
mutually agreed inter-dependency and therefore to be considered in the context of an
alignment:
• Environmental Capacity, sub-paragraphs 1.2.2 and 1.3.2;
• Network Planning, sub-paragraphs 1.2.2 and 1.3.2;
• Infrastructure Planning, sub-paragraphs 1.2.2 and 1.3.8;
• Aircraft Stand Allocation, sub-paragraphs 1.2.2 and 1.3.8.
Note: A description of each business process is at paragraphs 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and at Appendix A.
The inter-dependent dyadic business processes Environmental Capacity and Network

Planning are of a strategic nature (see Figure 2-3). The process Infrastructure Planning is of a
strategic and tactical nature. The process Aircraft Stand Allocation is of a tactical and
operational nature
The selected four business processes for research are placed in the context of the research
field to demonstrate that this research is of relevance to the corporate world of KLM and
AAS.
R.P. Perié 49
1.3.10 RESEARCH FIELD

In conclusion of this paragraph, the research for this dissertation is based upon the complex
relation between airlines and airports. It focuses upon mitigation of that complexity by
looking for Factors for Alignment of dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS.
Airlines and Airports Combination Complexity

Major hub-airports are strongly dependent upon their main carrier airlines, with a traditional
“hub & spoke” business model. To develop further, they particularly need to focus upon
making their processes more flexible and on optimal use of their resources (Ringbeck et al.,
2005, p.6; sub-paragraph 1.2.1). In turn, this will be dependent upon taking a holistic
perspective and on optimizing through and beyond partners involved. The concept of an
aligned system partnership needs to be given new, practically focused content.
The primary focus for hub-airports must be on creating an efficient inter-face to their main-
carrier airline customers whilst remaining non-discriminatory (Ringbeck et al., 2005, p.7).
Both airlines and airports are linked by a complicated symbiotic relationship, whereby they
are simultaneously a customer, supplier, and competitor and system partner. To date no
European hub has succeeded in achieving a balance between airport and airline which is
simultaneously stable, growth-oriented and with aligned and optimized business processes
enabling both sides to go forward on that basis on a stronger footing (Ringbeck, 2007).
Although the relationships should be of a non-discriminatory nature due to operations of
other users, an improved alignment of the hub-airport (AAS) and main-carrier airline (KLM)
will also benefit all other users.
A series of influencing aspects outside control of the hub-airport (AAS) and main-carrier
airline (KLM) remain significant (Ringbeck et al., 2005, p.7) (Figure 1-4). These include
expansion of the flight network and catchment area, stability of investment for growth of
infrastructure, perceptions of environmental nuisance etc. For those reasons, joint or aligned
political lobbying will continue to be critical to the success of the hub-airport (AAS) as well
as its main- carrier airline (KLM).
Next to the possibilities for improvement of the core processes of an airport, the operational
interfaces with airlines offer further unexploited potential. Specifically ground-based
processes make it possible to achieve considerable differentiation for their shared customer,
i.e. passengers and cargo, as well as impacting positively on costs (Ringbeck et al., 2005,
p.11). This differentiation is of major strategic importance for the contested European short-
haul traffic. Given the close inter-meshing of all areas of e.g. ground handling, significant
improvement is only possible through an all-embracing aligned approach which involves all
key players.
It appears that no previous research has addressed the complex relation between airlines and
airports, much less the alignment of their inter-dependent elements e.g. business processes.
This implies that neither viable academic theory nor empirical evidence regarding this
complex relation exists, i.e. a research gap exists. The phenomenon of this relation is of
importance to both the main-carrier airline, i.e. KLM, and its hub-airport, i.e. AAS. This
research is to contribute to filling the void of plausible research by theory-building.
Mitigation of Complexity for KLM and AAS

Partners with a history of adversarial interaction, i.e. KLM and AAS, have tensions inherent
in their way of relating which are accentuated by the complexity of the business environment
50 R.P. Perié
(Spekman and Caraway, 2006). Competitive pressures have caused exchange partners, i.e.
KLM and AAS, to need to:
• facilitate multi-function, multi-level interaction;
• proactively explore opportunities to leverage skills to bring value to customers;
• achieve alignment within firms and across firm boundaries to maximize the
probability to market acceptance of goods and services; and
• think longer term, looking for win-win solutions for buyer, seller and customer.
Tensions center upon the challenges of aligning activities, information and processes to
accomplish these objectives. To manage these tensions, both for alignment and the transition
to alignment, firms need three categories of factors in place (Spekman and Carraway, 2006).
The first category is comprised of facilitating capabilities, which are competencies that are
helpful to avoid or minimize obstacles to attainment of alignment. The second category
consists of factors that push the firms to employ their capabilities in the direction of
alignment. The third category provides the glue, i.e. factors, that hold the transition and
alignment together. All three categories are critical as, in addition to natural tensions,
unexpected changes in the environment or context inevitably arise which will require flexible
negotiation to overcome these sources of potential challenge to the aligned firms.
Managerial attitude is one of the major barriers to successfully making the transition to and
sustaining more aligned relations (Spekman and Carraway, 2006). If the opportunity to create
an aligned system is looked at from a bird’s eye view, the fear of open exchange of
information in the context of a command and control model and/or the reluctance to
relinquish authority to a value chain partner will cause the value chain members to miss that
opportunity to create closer ties.
Spekman and Carraway (2006) have presented Figure 1-14 as framework for managers to
recognize and understand their factors that facilitate the transition to more aligned value
chains. Despite academic research and anecdotal evidence that support the rationale for
greater alignment, some firms fail to address critical questions necessary to ensure a more
customer centric value chain. The model by Spekman and Carraway asks managers about
sharing of strategic information and other pertinent questions in the context of alignment
leading to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.
Facilitating
Capabilities Drivers
A more A more
traditional
relationship
• Mindset • System-wide aligned
relationship
thinking
• Skill set
• Structure • Performance
metrics
• Processes
•
Fundamental Enablers
• Trust
• Customer focus
Figure 1-14: Transitioning to a more aligned model
(Spekman and Caraway, 2006)
R.P. Perié 51
The goal of this research is to determine Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic business
processes of KLM and AAS.
1.4 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

This paragraph provides insights in the gaps filled by this research.
1.4.1 SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION

Eisenhardt (1989, 2000, 2002 and 2007) provides a roadmap for building theory from case-
study research. By discussing concrete steps in conducting and analyzing case studies,
Eisenhardt provides a useful inductive strategy for building theories that are novel, testable
and especially appropriate for new topic areas.
In accordance with the Research Field in the previous sub-paragraph 1.3.10 a framework of
concepts and their definitions is provided to describe and analyze the creation of alignment of
specific dyads of business processes of a main carrier airline and hub airport, i.e. KLM and
AAS.
This research refers to the awareness of inter-dependency at KLM and AAS. The
consequences of various scenarios with respect to opportunities of benefiting from this inter-
dependence are recognized. These are perceived to not have been exploited in a sufficient
manner.
Value-adding partnerships are defined as purposeful relationships, by C3 behavior (sub-

paragraph 1.3.1), between independent firms who share compatible goals, strive for mutual
benefit and acknowledge a high level of inter-dependence. Such firms join forces to achieve
goals that each firm, acting alone, could not easily attain. An alignment is defined as any
voluntary formed, contractual collaborative arrangement between two or more independent
firms with the declared intention of improving long-term competitiveness and thereby
enhancing overall performance.
Albeit that KLM and AAS engage in various forms of non-formalized irregular co-operation,
a general lack of integral knowledge of the partner’s organization precludes any structured
alignment. This encourages appropriate research to benefit not only this segment of industry
but also to gain knowledge as such research has neither been carried out in this country nor in
a similar manner elsewhere, i.e. a research gap. This also implies that inductive theory-
building vice theory-testing is in order. The research contributes to the state of the art of
analytical research by introducing an approach to propose the structured alignment of
specific dyadic elements at the level of business processes of a major carrier airline and hub
airport, i.e. KLM and AAS.
Concluding, research by Gibbs (2006) has provided the starting point for this research. Use
of the titles of his constructs in literature research, a Delft Factors for Alignment model is
created which provides a novel contribution to scientific research. It addresses inter-
organizational alignment at the level of business processes and defines Factors for Alignment
for specific dyadic business processes. This model is not known to science.
52 R.P. Perié
1.4.2 MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTION

“Nothing is so practical as a good theory” captures a theme that is as important today as it
was in Lewin’s time (1945). Good theory is practical because it advances knowledge in a
scientific discipline, guides research towards crucial questions, and enlightens the profession
of management.
Major strategic benefits are reaped by working together in primary activities that are
distinctive for the industry under consideration. The focus, therefore, is on inter-dependent
activities of KLM and AAS.
Strategic forms of alignment among airlines are now common in the aviation industry and are
frequently seen as a response of airlines to changing economic and regulatory conditions.
These conditions have changed for airports as well, and airports have been confronted with
profound governance changes over the last two decades. Theory and practice debate centers
on questions regarding models and potential benefits of alignment between airlines and
airports at the level of specific business processes.
Rather than bemoan the fact of dependency, KLM and AAS should seek to set that
dependency in the context of their overall relationship strategy as their competiveness is
dependent upon the manner of their alignment. There is no right set of relationships, as
market conditions, cost pressures and business strategies all act to influence relations with
partners and suppliers. KLM and AAS need a better understanding of the Factors for
Alignment for their dyadic business processes. This alignment will reduce the integral cost of
hub airport operations, increase joint revenues and improve their mutual image in order to
not only gain but also maintain their competitive advantage. The constant renewal of
products, processes, markets and organization enables firms to stay ahead of competition. To
date no European hub has succeeded in achieving a balance between an airport and airline
which is simultaneously stable, growth-oriented and with optimized business processes
enabling both sides to go forward on that basis on a stronger footing.
It is this management task that provides the initiative for this research. In order to realize the
prospect of competitive advantage or to create value-laden offering by aligned dyadic
relationships, KLM and AAS need a better understanding of what determines a successful
relationship. These determinants of success are themselves influenced by the structure of the
channel relationship and the geo-political location of the intermediary.
This dissertation contributes to discussions concerning the creation of alignment in actual

practice of the national main-carrier airline and hub-airport, i.e. KLM and AAS. This
research contributes to ensuring that the discussion between KLM and AAS of objectives,
alternatives, complications etc. becomes transparent. In current discussions, the objectives
are not always unambiguous. A contribution of this research is proposing Factors for
Alignment for specific dyadic business processes.
Hub-airports and main-carrier airlines particularly need to focus upon making their processes
more flexible and upon optimal use of their resources. In turn, this will be dependent upon
taking a holistic perspective and on optimizing through and beyond partners involved. The
concept of an aligned system partnership needs to be given new, practically focused content.
This research provides a contribution to the national aviation industry. Although the
relationships should be of a non-discriminatory nature due to other users, an improved
R.P. Perié 53
alignment of the main-carrier airline (KLM) and hub-airport (AAS) also benefits all other
partners.
This research explores the relationship between KLM and AAS from a strategic management
perspective. It emphasizes the potential benefits of aligned dyadic relationships between their
specific dyadic business processes.
As stated at the end of sub-paragraph 1.3.10, Research Field, managerial attitude is one of
the major barriers to successfully making the transition to and sustaining more aligned
relations. The fear of open exchange of information in the context of a command and control
model and/or the reluctance to relinquish authority to a value chain partner cause the value
chain members to miss that opportunity to create closer or aligned ties. Managers should
recognize and understand the factors that facilitate the transition to more aligned processes in
the value chains. Regular sharing of strategic information and other pertinent questions in the
context of alignment leading to achieve sustainable competitive advantage is essential.
This research also contributes to the realization of the goals of the Main Port, i.e.
improvement of capacity and accessibility “airside”. The focus of this contribution is upon
the main research themes of the Platform of SIM, i.e.:
• Optimization of the value chain, including the dyadic business processes
infrastructure planning and aircraft stand allocation;
• The Netherlands Government’s interest in the dyadic business processes
environmental capacity and network planning; including
Finally, this research also indicates that the expectation of the Platform of SIM, including the
highest management level of KLM and AAS, is realistic that “specific business processes of
KLM and AAS, and other actors on and around AAS, can be aligned”.
1.4.3 SOCIETAL CONTRIBUTION

Understanding the Factors for Alignment opens the possibility to look at improvement of the
dyadic alignment of specific inter-dependent business processes of KLM and AAS. This, in
turn, will result in more effective and efficient operation of these processes which leads to
becoming known as a “best practice airport”. This will also contribute to the creation and
maintenance of their competitive advantage. That will not only be to the benefit of KLM and
AAS but also for the benefit of its customers, i.e. passengers and cargo agents.
1.5 STRUCTURE OF DISSERTATION

This chapter has provided an introduction to the research. It described the research
background - including the motivation -, the scope of the research field - including the
selection of the business processes to be researched - and the contributions to theory and
managerial practice. In the next chapter the research design is described, including the
research questions, the research methodology and research approach.
Chapter 3 of this dissertation addresses the literature research in which Factors for Alignment
are found and put into a theoretical model. In Chapter 4 the model is used to create the
54 R.P. Perié
answers to the research question “Which are the factors for alignment of dyadic business
processes at KLM and AAS?”
Subsequently the conclusions from this research are described in Chapter 5 with a number of
recommendations in Chapter 6. The research ends with a brief discussion of specific aspects
in Chapter 7. The research for this dissertation is structured as depicted in Figure 1-15.
Figure 1-15: Dissertation Structure
R.P. Perié 55
56 R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE RESEARCH DESIGN
2 RESEARCH DESIGN
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the overall research design for this dissertation is presented. In Chapter 1, it is
illustrated that this research is about determining Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic
business processes at KLM and AAS.
Research carried out by Dr. Richard K. Gibbs showed that inter-organizational learning
through IOR is critical to the creation of competitive advantage (Levinson and Asahi as cited
by Gibbs, 2006, p.34). Such competitive advantage can materialize by creation of the climate
and conditions for substantial knowledge exchange that leads to joint learning and by the
ability to leverage specific investments, the creation of new products, services and
technologies.
Gibbs (2006) explores the constructs of relational exchange, i.e. relationship quality, and
relationship success which determine their relevance for relationship strength in his research
of a relationship between a manufacturer and intermediary. The research by Gibbs (2006),
regarding the three constructs of relational exchange mentioned above, provides the starting
point for this research. Gibbs, citing Buttle et al. (2006, p.55), points out that “customer value
is a fundamental constituent of a relationship and is created through a firms’ personal and
systematic connection with its customers”. The generally accepted definition of total value
are the net gains from the partnership, which is benefits less attributable costs (Anderson and
Narus, as cited by Gibbs, 2006).
In justifying theory building, Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) formulate that sound empirical
research begins with systematic data collection in related literature; it identifies a research
gap, and proposes a research question that addresses the research gap. In sub-paragraph
1.3.10 the research gap is described. Systematic data collection in related literature is
described in Chapter 3 to identify and fill the research gap after formulation of the research
question in paragraph 2.2.
In sub-paragraph 1.3.10 it is stated that neither viable academic theory nor empirical
evidence regarding the complex relation of airlines and airports exists. The phenomenon of
this relation is of importance to theory and critical to both the main-carrier airline and its
hub-airport (Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007). As the literature research did not find theory
regarding the complex relation of airlines and airports, it is required to describe theory-
building by an inductive case study. This research is to contribute to filling the void of
plausible research regarding the complex relation of KLM and AAS by theory-building. This
research addresses a phenomenon important to the inter-dependent relation of KLM and AAS.
The research question (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) reflects that importance in view of
the lack of plausible existing research, empirical evidence or theory.
Based upon the literature research findings, the Delft Factors for Alignment model is
generated.
R.P. Perié 57
RESEARCH DESIGN ALL FOR ONE
This chapter elaborates on different aspects of the research design. It addresses the following
main topics, i.e.
• research question (paragraph 2.2),
• research setup (paragraph 2.3),
• interview (paragraph 2.4),
• questionnaire (paragraph 2.5),
• combining interview and questionnaire data (paragraph 2.6),
• comparing results of partner firms (paragraph 2.7),
• presenting analysis results per firm and per dyad (paragraph 2.8) and
• conclusion (paragraph 2.9) of this chapter.
2.2 RESEARCH QUESTION

business processes at KLM and AAS.
Research by Gibbs (2006) and Rennestraum (2007) have provided the inspiration and starting
point for this research. Use of the titles of Gibbs’ constructs in literature research, a Delft
Factors for Alignment model is created in Chapter 3, which provides a novel contribution to
scientific research. It addresses inter-organizational alignment at the level of business
processes and defines Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic business processes.
In order to validate the developed model, in Chapter 4, research is carried out within four
inter-dependent business processes of two firms. KLM and AAS are the two firms that are
used as a dyadic case study.
This is to be answered by the research question:
Answers to this research question in Chapters 3 and 4 are to increase the understanding of the
effect of different factors upon alignment. After delineating the research question above, the
research setup for this dissertation is described in the following paragraph.
2.3 RESEARCH SETUP

The research setup is described in this paragraph by focusing upon the literature research and
the case studies for selected dyadic business processes.
2.3.1 LITERATURE RESEARCH

In sub-paragraph 1.3.10, Research Field, it is stated that no previous research has addressed
the complex relation between airlines and airports, e.g. KLM and AAS, nor the alignment of
specific inter-dependent business processes. Initial literature research has discovered just two
papers regarding the relation of airports and airlines but only in the context of infrastructure
58 R.P. Perié
planning based upon a transaction cost analysis perspective, i.e. Fuhr (2005) and Fuhr and
Beckers (2006). These authors were previously associated with Lufthansa German airlines.
Gibbs (2006, p.41) states that other authors have summarized their research of an IOR’s
perception of relational exchange in terms of relationship quality, relationship strength and
relationship success. His literature review discusses these alternative concepts in order to
ensure clarity and precision of terminology and subsequent performance measurement during
his research and analysis.
As this research is focused upon determination of Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic
business processes of KLM and AAS, the research by Gibbs (2006) regarding the three
constructs of relational exchange mentioned above in the context of inter-organizational
relationships (IOR) provides the starting point for this research.
The goal of the literature research is to find factors which in previous research have been
found to determine alignment. Based upon the titles of the constructs defined in the research
by Gibbs (2006), categorized attributes defined from this literature research are linked to the
previously mentioned titles of the constructs of Gibbs (2006). Subsequently research
establishes that from the creation of these attributes, that are linked to the titles of constructs
of Gibbs (2006), that they have complementary roles in defining specific factors. The results
of the literature research in Chapter 3, including defined mutually exclusive factors, are
presented in the model of Delft Factors for Alignment, called DFA model. This model is
used as an instrument for interviews and questionnaires in the research of case studies.
The literature research consists of eight consecutive phases and outlines the relation between
theory and practice.
The phases 1 to 5, described in more detail in Chapter 3 - Literature Research, are:
Phase 1, Article selection process

An article long list of 308 articles is constructed by utilizing scientific article resources
available online. Specific keywords derived from the research question as well as appropriate
research domains are used as search criteria. The article long list is subjected to a title and
abstract analysis, to come to a short list. In order to progress from the short list to a more
refined final list of 51 scientific articles, a full text analysis is carried out.
Phase 2, Attribute determination

The articles of the final list are subjected to an analysis through which only those attributes
for Factors for Alignment are extracted that are the result from the article authors’ research.
Attributes that are a compiled result of other research without adding to the body of
knowledge and thus merely presenting a literature overview, are discarded.
Phase 3, Factor definition

The in phase 2 extracted attributes, are clustered to define Factors for Alignment.
Phase 4, Construct definition

The in phase 3 defined Factors for Alignment, are subsequently clustered to define constructs.
R.P. Perié 59
Phase 5, Structuring Delft Factors for Alignment model

The attributes, and consequently Factors for Alignment are structured to build the Delft
Factors for Alignment (DFA) model.
The phases 6 to 8, described in more detail in Chapter 4 - Research of Business Processes at

KLM and AAS, are:
Phase 6, Data gathering

The field research commences with a data gathering phase, consisting of a series of open
questions and questionnaire interview sessions which are all processed in interview
transcripts.
Phase 7, Extracting issues

The interview transcripts are analyzed and issues are extracted, described in sub-paragraph
2.4.1, which affect the alignment in the perception of each respondent. All issues extracted
from the interview transcripts are numbered and listed such that traceability and replicability
of the research is ensured.
Phase 8, Linking issues to factors

The Delft Factors for Alignment model is used to structure the filtered issues according to the
Factors for Alignment. These issues are linked to one or more factors, based upon textual
analogy between issue and factor definitions. In case the factor definitions alone are not
sufficient to assign an issue to one or more factors, it is possible to go one level deeper. In
that case one can look for synonyms and/or attributes within the text of the issue, which are
used to compose the factors. The linking of issues to Factors for Alignment is carefully
performed by comparing research at KLM and AAS to ensure a similar interpretation of
issues as well as factor definitions. The linking of issues to Factors for Alignment is the
conceptualization from practice to theory.
The previously outlined phases 1 to 8 are illustrated in Figure 2-1. The described sequence in
Chapter 3 of phase 1 to 5 constitutes the model construction in theory, and subsequently in
Chapter 4 its practical and theoretical application for the analysis of the business processes at
KLM and AAS, in phase 6 to 8.
60 R.P. Perié
Figure 2-1: Literature Research Approach phases
The above mentioned rationale leads to a description of the application of the literature
research in case studies.
2.3.2 CASE STUDIES

Introduction
Building theory using case studies is a research strategy that involves using one or more
cases to create theoretical constructs and propositions from case-based, empirical evidence
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Case studies are rich, empirical descriptions of particular instances of a
phenomenon that are typically based on a variety of data sources (Yin, 1994).
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) state that their central notion is to use cases as the basis from
which to develop theory inductively. The theory is emergent in the sense that it is situated in
and developed by recognizing patterns of relationships among constructs within and across
cases and their underlying arguments.
Central to building theory using case studies is replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989). That is,
each case study serves as a distinct experiment that stands on its own as an analytic unit.
Case studies, indeed, typically combine data collection methods such as archives, interviews,
questionnaires and observations (Eisenhardt, 1989, p.534-535). Eisenhardt and Graebner
(2007) remark that while laboratory experiments isolate the phenomena from their context,
case studies emphasize the rich, real-world context in which the phenomena occur. Although
sometimes seen as “subjective”, well-done theory building from cases is surprisingly
“objective”, because its close adherence to the data keeps researchers “honest”. A major
reason for the popularity and relevance of theory building from case studies is that it is one of
the best - if not the best - of the bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream
deductive research.
Based upon Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), case selection in research of the relation KLM
and AAS is to develop theory, not to test theory. The selected cases are particularly suitable
R.P. Perié 61
for illuminating and extending relationships and researching Factors for Alignment. Cases
are not randomly sampled but explicitly chosen for the likelihood that they will offer
theoretical insight.
In case studies many options for different research paths are available and useful. No single
right solution for proper analysis exists. This flexibility does require adequate explanation to
convince interested readers of the validity of chosen research paths.
While single-cases can richly describe the existence of a phenomenon, multiple-case studies
typically provide a stronger base for theory-building (Siggelkow, 2007 and Yin, 1994, as
cited by Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). The last authors use the analogy of laboratory
experiments; the theory is more systematic, more accurate and more generalizable - all else
being equal - when it is based upon multiple case experiments.
Because case numbers are typically small, a few additional cases can significantly affect the
quality of the emergent theory
In sub-paragraph 1.3.9, Process Selection, four specific inter-dependent business processes at

different levels of decision making contributions to creation of competitive advantage of
KLM and AAS, are identified for this research. They are selected based upon mutually
agreed inter-dependency and therefore to be considered in the context of an alignment. These
are:
• Environmental Capacity;
• Network Planning;
• Infrastructure Planning;
• Aircraft Stand Allocation.
It is noted that the first two business processes (Environmental Capacity and Network
Planning) are derived from The Netherland’s government “Main Port Objective” as
described in sub-paragraph 1.2.2, Concept for and Corporate Interest of KLM & AAS. In
spite of the important role of AAS for the economy of The Netherlands as well as its
contribution to employment, the “Main Port Objective” is constrained by limitations due to
environmental considerations of the (same) government. These limitations constrain the
number of aircraft movements significantly. The increase of capacity as well as aircraft
movements is crucial to attain the Main Port Objective (Ministry of Transport, 2003). In
paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 these business processes are researched as separate case studies.
The next two business processes (Infrastructure Planning and Aircraft Stand Allocation) are
derived from previous research at KLM (Rennestraum, 2007) regarding feasible alignment
between KLM and AAS in the context of awareness of unexploited opportunities of mutual
benefit of their inter-dependence. In paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 these business processes are
researched as separate case studies.
The four dyadic business processes are selected as a maximum feasible number for this
research and are considered to be representative for the dyadic relations of KLM and AAS as
the three decision making levels (strategic, tactical and operational as in Figure 2-3 and sub-
paragraph 1.3.9) are included in these processes.
62 R.P. Perié
Research Methodology
In this section the following are described, in the context of case studies, i.e.:
• triangulation,
• research set-up describing the sequence of the applied research methods and
measuring Factors for Alignment.
Triangulation is chosen to research the effect of Factors for Alignment. The combination of
types of data is believed to lead to an increased understanding of the research phenomenon
and contribute to the overall research quality (Reunis, 2007). Combining different types of
research is defined as triangulation (Rozemeijer, 2000). Triangulation is derived from the
metaphor of navigation, where a naval person uses several bearings to determine the
“truthful” position. Similarly using several cases, several respondents, and various data
gathering techniques at the same time increases the reliability of research results.
The various types of triangulation in this research are (Rozemeijer, 2000):

• Research triangulation: combination and comparison of individual observations from
different researchers to filter out subjective distortions;
• Data triangulation: collecting and analyzing information from different angles and
several different questions;
• Source triangulation: combining different sources of information as well as different
respondents per case study;
• Method triangulation: combining face-to-face interviews and questionnaires with
document analysis and observation.
In this research we combine literature research and interviews of various respondents at,
questionnaires of business processes of two inter-dependent firms, i.e. KLM and AAS, within
case studies. To control the quality of the data, the interviews of the respondents in the
comparable business processes from the inter-dependent firms and direct observation are
combined and compared (triangulation). This is repeated for four different inter-dependent
business processes. The factors and other measurements are well defined and kept the same
throughout the research process.
The reliability of the research procedure itself, to enable other researchers to replicate this
research and generate comparable results, is controlled by carefully describing the steps
taken in this research, i.e. determination of the research question, data collection and deriving
the conclusions.
The empirical research of alignment within specific business processes is based upon
triangulation, as a collection of three types of data is conducted in succession each having the
same objective to measure the performance of the Factors for Alignment. The data collected
within this research project are sequentially the following:
• Interviews, described in paragraph 2.4;
• Questionnaire, described in paragraph 2.5;
• Data comparison of partner firms, i.e. KLM and AAS, described in paragraph 2.7 and
paragraph 2.8.
R.P. Perié 63
The research set-up describes the sequence of the research. After extensive literature research,
the interviews shed light upon the issues existing within the processes; i.e. qualitative
information. The Delft Factors for Alignment (DFA) model, created by literature research, is
subsequently applied to transform the qualitative into quantitative data. Secondly, the
application of a questionnaire provides a tool to measure the performance of Factors for
Alignment, i.e. quantitative data. The combination of both information streams leads to a
firm and process specific analysis regarding the Factors for Alignment. These results are,
subsequently, compared with those of the partner firm, i.e. AAS or KLM. This set-up is
illustrated in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2: Research Set-up
The data to be used provide the input for the analysis phase of the research. They are the
basis for the analysis of the present situation.
Within the Research Set-up three successive analysis phases are depicted. These are:
1. The literature research is to identify Factors for Alignment and produce its model;
2. The analysis of each of the dyadic business processes. Their elements are:
64 R.P. Perié
• The interview which provides insight in descriptions of the inter-dependent business

process and aids the identification of issues affecting alignment in each process;
• The questionnaire which provides both a quantitative measurement of each factor and
a qualitative explanation supporting the scoring level of each factor;
• The “respondent specific” Factor Occurrence Matrix (Figure 2-5) is presented to
compute and analyze the factor occurrence of the issues mentioned by each
respondent during the interview session;
• The Factor Delta (Figure 2-6) rationale and its presentation is elaborated;
• The Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot (Figure 2-8), is introduced to combine both
information streams, i.e. the qualitative information (interview) and the quantitative
factor score (questionnaire).
3. For comparison of the analysis of KLM and AAS, the elements are:
• A description is provided of the applied data collection, their deliverables and the
manner of analysis of these deliverables;
• The data collection and analysis models are presented in sequential order.
• The elements of the research are the interviews and the factor occurrence matrix as a
tool to compute the interview transcripts.
• This is followed by the questionnaire allowing measurement of alignment and the bar
chart for presentation.
• Finally, an analysis tool is provided to combine both information streams, i.e. the
Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot.
In the following sections measuring Factors for Alignment will be used to qualitatively and
quantitatively establish the Factors for Alignment. The collection of data will be carried out
during the interviews and making use of a questionnaire, with respondents from within KLM
and AAS inter-dependent business processes.
1. Quantitative: scores per factor by each respondent per business process per firm of
the performance of the Factors for Alignment, making use of the scale 1 – 7; the
average score per factor, per business process, per firm is determined;
2. Qualitative: during the interviews respondents provide examples, in their own words,
describing their appreciation of not only the actual execution of the business process
within their firm as well as in the relation with AAS or KLM respectively but also
their proposals for improvement of any related aspect. With the knowledge of the
definitions of the Factors for Alignment, research highlights any comments in that
context;
3. Qualitative: at the end of the analysis of all interviews and questionnaires, a group
discussion with process owners regarding the outcome of the analysis, as described in
Chapter 6, could later be organized to come to proposals for alignment.
The following two paragraphs describe the first two data collection methods applied to gather
data. The first method applied to gather data is the conduct of interviews (qualitative) and the
second method is the application of a questionnaire (quantitative). The applied methods are
elaborated and the applied analysis tools explained.
R.P. Perié 65
2.4 INTERVIEW
2.4.1 INTENT
In order to promote positive change throughout the value chain and foster alignment by
developing fitting processes, shifting roles and building personal relationships, manager and
worker buy-in and commitment are required (Vereecke et al., 2006). This commitment is
achieved by involving employees in the change process itself and not only informing them of
the implementation. The research results by the transcripts of interviews demonstrate that
employees of KLM and AAS provide their proposals for alignment.
The first data collection method applied is the conduct of interviews. This data collection
method is selected as it provides the interviewer with the opportunity to ask follow-up
questions, to explore the contents and contexts of responses. This research makes use of the
available knowledge within both firms. The participants are selected such that the population
represents a wide array of key stakeholders in each process. A distinction in respondents is
made dependent upon the level and their time within the firm.
• Strategic level: respondents at the decision-making level at which policies are
established, business plans created and the financial levels set;
• Tactical level: respondents responsible for the translation of strategic policies and
plans which in effect become operational;
• Operational level: respondents active within the established operational framework
and policies.
See sub-paragraph 1.3.9 for selection of dyadic business processes in relation to the level of
decision-making. It should be realized that separation of the strategic, tactical and/or
operational levels is difficult. The following perspectives are illustrated in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-3: Levels of respondents’perspectives
The focus of research is on the identification of issues affecting alignment and their related
Factors for Alignment. It is counter-productive as well as confounding to request respondents
to describe their participation in their inter-dependent business process by making use of the
appropriate factors themselves as their interpretation of the factors will diverge due to their
lack of necessary knowledge. These factor definitions are therefore not explicitly provided.
The objective of the interview session is to identify issues which affect the alignment within
the associated inter-dependent business process. The appreciation, weight or importance of
66 R.P. Perié
the issue provided by the respondent is derived from their knowledge of and experience in
these inter-dependent business processes. The applied setup is to interview each respondent
alone, thus excluding group-interviews to avoid influence by third parties.
The interview session is structured by two subsequent parts, i.e. an open question session
followed by open ended questionnaire. The open question session consists of three sets of
questions. The first set contains respondent specific questions related to their position in the
process, which will provide information for the process description. A positive side effect of
applying these questions in the beginning of the interview session is to promote that the
respondent is at ease. Secondly a set of structured questions, repeatedly asked in all
interviews, are posed which are primarily focused to obtain the respondent’s perceived issues
affecting alignment. Parallel to the structured questions, unstructured questions will be posed
regarding the issues, as provided by the respondent, to improve the understanding of the
context and background of the associated issue.
The second part of the interview session is used to obtain a quantitative measurement of each
factor. As the applied structure is an open ended questionnaire, the respondent is asked to
provide a qualitative explanation behind the given score of each factor. By initially providing
a free format to express their views followed by a structured questionnaire, it is expected that
rich information is obtained from each interview session. Specific statements by respondents
are verified by questioning other respondents.
The interview session leads to three types of information:

• First, a description of the inter-dependent business process as perceived by the
respondent;
• Second, the identification of respondent specific issues within the inter-dependent
business process; an issue is an item which affects alignment of a business process;
• Third, a respondent specific quantitative measure of each factor and the qualitative
explanation behind the score given. The second and third types of information are
input for the model.
2.4.2 DATA
The interview transcripts are used to identify individual and collective perceptions of positive
aspects, i.e. satisfaction, and negative aspects, i.e. issues, within the inter-dependent process.
The focus of this research is confined to only the issues. The satisfaction is not taken into
account in the analysis, but is also not disregarded as it may provide significant input for
proposals. The qualitative data gathered in phase 6, is subjected to an analysis of the
interview transcript focused on extracting issues mentioned in the interview sessions in phase
7 shown in Figure 2-1 of the interview processing methodology. This analysis leads to a
process specific issue collection per respondent. Each issue is then subjected to an analysis
focused on linking it to its related factors, illustrated as phase 8 in Figure 2-4.
R.P. Perié 67
Figure 2-4: Interview transcript analysis approach
The linking is based upon the analogy with the factor definition, the related attributes of the
factor, or its comparability with synonyms. The linking process of an issue to factors is
outlined in Example 1, taken from an interview transcript. The text between brackets is the
factor linked to this issue and the underlined word is the reason on which the factor linking is
based.
Source: Appendix H
…..they expect us to develop gates and piers and all sorts of thing, to do more for the transfer passenger to
improve the transfer passenger process, but at the moment that we ask them to provide information (Sharing)
which enables us to setup these projects, they come to a standstill and the project gets stuck, they refuse to
share information (Sharing) which is crucial to us, this is for me for the larger part very understandable, as
they operate in an industry in which competition is fierce, but on the other hand they must increasingly
understand that if the both of us want to get thing of the ground it is a necessity that certain information needs
to be shared, it is currently a trust matter (Integrity, Attitude) between the both……..
Example 1: Issue linking to associated factors
This exercise is carried out for all extracted issues.
When the Delft Factors for Alignment model and the factors related to the respondent
specific issue collection are combined, the factor occurrence per respondent and factor
occurrence over all respondents, are determined; i.e. the “respondent specific” Factor
Occurrence Matrix. The “respondent specific” Factor Occurrence Matrix is illustrated by
Figure 2-5. The determination of occurrence of a factor per respondent is carried out by a
cumulative count of the factors over the respondent specific issue collection. In Figure 2-5,
Factor 1 indicates that it has been linked three times to the issues of the respondent specific
issue collection. This exercise is possible for all respondents involved, thus from respondent
1 up to respondent n. It is possible that specific factors are not linked to issues, i.e. the
occurrence score equals 0. That only implies that these factors are not deemed relevant by the
68 R.P. Perié
selected respondents in the context of the researched process. When a horizontal summation
of the factor occurrence per respondent is performed, an overall occurrence score of this
factor within the specific process is obtained. Within the example Factor 1 has an overall
occurrence score of 12. Based upon the overall occurrence scores of all factors of the Delft
Factors for Alignment model, the possibility now exists to rank these factors according to
their occurrence score within the associated process, as an indication of its importance. The
advantage of this matrix is that it visualizes the division of related factors over all
respondents. The limitation though, is that it fails to provide insight with respect to the
context (practice) of the linked factor (theory).
Figure 2-5: Respondent Specific Factor Occurrence Matrix
Note: Figure 2-5 uses input from Figure 2-4 and Figure 3-5.
The three previously outlined analysis phase’s result in the possibility to determine which
issues and factors are related to which respondent. Additionally, by the matrix a
determination of the factor occurrence per respondent and overall factor occurrence within
the process is possible, as well as determining a ranking of factors
2.5 QUESTIONNAIRE
2.5.1 INTENT
The second data collection method that is applied is a questionnaire. The questionnaire is
provided during the second part of the interview session. The questionnaire has a three-fold
objective:
R.P. Perié 69
• First, the respondent is given a framework of definitions of factors, i.e. thus

excluding the exact factor name, by which the opportunity exists to link issues
mentioned in the open question phase to the factor definitions;
• Second, for each factor scored the respondent’s reasoning is requested, additional
issues are extracted and are directly linked to a factor to also avoid risk of single
measurements;
• Third, it will provide the respondent’s individual quantitative measure of each factor.
The basis for the construction of the questionnaire is the factor definitions of the Delft
Factors for Alignment model. For each factor to be measured a question is formulated, which
reflects the definition of the associated factor. To avoid individual and therefore confounding
interpretation regarding the contents of the factor by diverging interpretations of a factor
definition, its name is not presented. As the scoring of the factors constitutes a judgment
regarding their experience of the Factors for Alignment within an inter-dependent business
process, the questioning only focuses upon the AAS - KLM cooperative relationship.
An example is the factor of Integrity: “To what extent do you experience the presence of a
sincere and honest atmosphere within the AAS-KLM cooperative relationship?” (Question
13, Table C-0-1).
A uni-dimensional Likert scaling method is applied, on a 1-7 scale to have an effective and
systematic means of determining the respondent’s attitude (Britannica Encyclopedia, 2008).
The questionnaire offers the respondents a means to express their attitude, i.e. experience and
consciousness of the performance of Factors for Alignment. Scores are requested on 7-point
scale, where 1 is negative, 4 is neutral and 7 are positive. Factor scores are derived by
averaging the scores. As the objective of the factor scoring is to measure the level of the
alignment regarding this factor, a 7 is defined as the maximum performance of the specific
factor. This situation is the situation where no Potential for Alignment is perceived to be
required by the respondent. Each scoring point below a 7 can indicate a Potential for
Alignment, for example a 4 can indicate a Potential for Alignment of 3, i.e. Factor Delta. The
reported factor score is a measurement of the current situation.
The content of the questionnaire is outlined in Appendix C.2. As it is applied in two Dutch
firms the written language is therefore Dutch. The paraphrased definitions of factors are
translated into English on the reverse side of the questionnaire for readers of this research. A
column is added to the questionnaire to provide the respondent with the opportunity to leave
a question unanswered, i.e. to avoid biased factor scores. The column is used by the
respondent in cases where: they either do not find the question relevant enough or, they do
not understand the meaning of the question or, they feel not to be in a position to give a well
based factor score and thus an answer to the question. The factors that are not given a score,
based on the above reasons, are not taken into account when the firm’s average factor scores
are computed.
2.5.2 DATA
Through the application of a questionnaire within the second part of the interview session, a
respondent specific score is obtained of each Factor for Alignment. The factor scores per
respondent, is the respondent specific situation, i.e. present state. By taking the average of all
70 R.P. Perié
the respondents’ scores per factor a representation of the firm’s view with respect to the
alignment per factor is obtained. The average factor score is illustrated in a horizontal bar
chart by the darker area, illustrated in Figure 2-6.
Average Factor Score Average Delta Factor
Avarage Factor Score/

Avarage FactorDelta
5
25. Roles & Responsibilities

19. Communication Systems
26. Mind-set
23. Cooperation Assessment

31. Conflict Resolution
12. Attitude
3. Organisational Skills
13. Integrity
20. Communication Effectiveness
18. Communication Intensity

9. Professional Culture Fit
4. Objectives Fit
28. Sharing
17. Joint Image
21. Communication Pro-activeness
5. Structural Compatibility
24. Coordination & Planning
11. Team Building

7. National Culture Fit
8. Corporate Culture Fit
6. Geographical Fit
2. Management Skills
30. Dedicated Resources
22. Cooperation Objectives
29. Learning & Training
14. Mutual Acceptance

1. Cooperation Experience
15. Mutual Dependence
16. Power Balance

10. Social Network Development
27. Collaborative Support

Factor nr. Name
Figure 2-6: Bar chart Illustration of Average Factor Score and Average Factor Delta
The listing of factors and the associated average factor score provides a ranking of factors per
interdependent business process per firm. This ranking constitutes a second method, next to
the factor occurrence, to determine a perceived Potential for Alignment of the factors. The
factors with the lowest average scores are determined to be the factors where the largest
average Delta for alignment is possible, i.e. average Factor Delta. From this moment on the
notation of “average factor score” is shortened to the notation of “factor score”. The same
accounts for average Factor Delta. If a “respondent specific” factor score or Delta is implied,
this will be explicitly indicated. The Factor Delta is indicated by the white area within each
bar of the bar chart, Figure 2-6.
Regarding the effect of the determined Factor Delta, it is assumed that:
• The effect of a possible alignment of 1 point on the scale cannot be determined to be
equal for every factor. The effect of a 1 point alignment on factor 13 (for example
‘Integrity’) can be much larger than the same 1 point alignment on factor 16 (Power
Balance);
• The effect of an alignment on one specific factor from 3 to 4 differs from the effect
on that specific factor from 6 to 7, it is remarked in advance that factor alignment
against effect on alignment will not behave linearly, rather inverse exponential.
This inverse exponential behavior, illustrated in Figure 2-7, reflects the characteristics of a
learning curve. The term learning curve originally refers to quick progress in learning during
the initial stages followed by gradually lesser improvements with further practice. When
viewed in the context of factors, a quick progress on alignment is made when a factor is still
in its initial stages (has a low factor score), followed by gradually less Potential for
Alignment as the score of 7 is approached.
The two curves in Figure 2-7 merely act as an example, as the exact behavior of the Potential
for Alignment of a specific factor score is not derived from data here, but is only assumed to
behave in this manner.
R.P. Perié 71
Figure 2-7: Influence of Factor Delta on improvement effect
Based on the latter two assumptions the following conclusions are drawn. First the average
tangent of the curve of each factor is process specific, and is determined by its occurrence
score, extracted from the interviews and subsequently stated in the factor occurrence matrix.
Secondly, as the local tangent of each factor is highest at lower factor scores, the highest
Potential for Alignment is assumed to lie at the factors that have the lowest factor scores, i.e.
have the highest Factor Delta.
The latter rationale has defined the Potential for Alignment to be two dimensional consisting
of two important variables, i.e. the “Factor Delta” (from questionnaires) and “Factor
Occurrence” (from interviews and explanation of questionnaire scores).
The defined two-dimensionality of Potential for Alignment, provokes the construction of an

analysis tool in which the two variables are combined, enabling the analysis results to be
visualized and positioned within a two dimensional area. The development of this tool and
interpretation of the visualized results are outlined in the next paragraph.
2.6 COMBINING INTERVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

The interview results, i.e. issues, are an explicit indication by the respondents of the
requirement of alignment of the factors. The questionnaire is on the other hand is an implicit
indication of this requirement. The explicit potential is defined as the importance of the
related factor. The implicit indication of the requirement is indicated by the Factor Delta.
These indicators provide the relative importance of this data.
The combination of both implicit and explicit requirement of alignment; i.e. the combination
of the data streams, results in the definition of the required alignment of each factor. This - in
turn - provides the answer to the second part of the research question.
These two variables of required alignment are compared in a plot with X-axis being the
factor occurrence and the Y-axis being the Factor Delta constituting the Factor Delta vs.
Occurrence Plot. This plot is illustrated in Figure 2-8.
72 R.P. Perié
Figure 2-8: Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot
The position of the factors is made visible by the Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot and can be
located anywhere in the quadrant. The left plot indicates that the discrete values for both axis
of either ‘Low’ or ‘High’ provide the opportunity to define four extremes. These four
extremes are:
I. Low Occurrence, Low Delta: Explicitly unacknowledged, Implicitly unacknowledged

II. Low Occurrence, High Delta: Explicitly unacknowledged, Implicitly acknowledged
III. High Occurrence, Low Delta: Explicitly acknowledged, Implicitly unacknowledged
IV. High Occurrence, High Delta: Explicitly acknowledged, Implicitly acknowledged
The multiplication of the factor occurrence and Factor Delta scores creates a new axis as the
diagonal in the plot on the right by which an increasing alignment is indicated going from the
lower left to the upper right. This function characteristic entails that a line representing equal
alignment is characterized as being hyperbolic; i.e. has asymptotic behavior. These lines are
the curved lines within the plot on the right of Figure 2-8.
The factors are characterized by their position within either the arbitrary regions of ‘Low’,
‘Medium’ or ‘High’ Alignment. These three regions signify:
HIGH. Significant alignment

MEDIUM. Moderate alignment
LOW. Little to no alignment
The position of the dividing curves (hyperbolic) is to arbitrarily divide the total area by
establishing clear cut-off points in the ranking of factors. Each factor is unambiguously
categorized, i.e. has a clear position within one of the three areas.
The absolute number of the multiplication of the factor occurrence and Factor Delta scores
does not give specific information. The Factors for Alignment are ranked top-down as
R.P. Perié 73
presented in the tables and visualized in the figures. The arbitrarily selected cut-off points are
at normalized multiples, e.g. 0.50 and 0.20, determine the associated hyperboles.
Group HIGH
This group contains all factors with a normalized multiple between the arbitrarily chosen
values of 1.0 – 0.5 in the division of the plot area. This represents the area with the highest
significant alignment and is therefore located in the upper-right corner of the plot. The
related primary Factors for Alignment are used in answering the research question.
Group MEDIUM
The second group includes all factors with a normalized multiple between the arbitrarily
chosen values of 0.5 – 0.2. This is the middle or medium group within the plot, which is less
significant than the first group but cannot be neglected and are considered as secondary
Factors for Alignment.
Group LOW
The third group includes Factors for Alignment with a low significance. These factors are
discarded in the answer of the research question.
2.7 COMPARING RESULTS OF PARTNER FIRMS

The third data collection method is a comparison of the analysis data of both firms. The
comparison of data obtained from the two firms, in the context of specific inter-dependent
business processes, will follow the same steps as the analysis of data of the two firms
individually in order to guarantee consistent analysis.
Data comparison of the dyadic firms is to provide the opportunity to reflect upon both firms’:
1. identified issues, and their associated factors; this information has a restricted
distribution;
2. questionnaire factor scores, the perceived factor occurrence, and the factor Potential
for Alignment i.e. its position in the Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot (e.g. HIGH,
MEDIUM, LOW) and ranking tables.
This reflection or comparison allows insight into the alignment effect of the factors of the
inter-dependent business processes of KLM and AAS.
The position of the factors of both firms is made visible by the comparison of each other’s
Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot. The graphical representation of the location of each factor
enables a comparison of each of the positional characteristics of the same factor at the partner
firm. The factor comparison is characterized by their position within one of the arbitrary
regions ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ or ‘High’ Potential for Alignment. The exact meaning of these
areas and rationale behind this plot is provided in the previous section.
74 R.P. Perié
2.8 PRESENTING ANALYSIS RESULTS PER FIRM AND PER DYAD

The four selected dyadic business processes are researched in Chapter 4. Each business
process is subjected to the same analysis to be able to compare their respective results, albeit
that such comparison requires prudence as the processes themselves differ to an extent.
The analysis in Chapter 4 is structured as follows:
• Joint Process Description;

• Interview Results, leading to a Factor Occurrence Matrix;
• Questionnaire Results leading to an Average Factor Score and Delta;
• Combining Interviews and Questionnaire Results leading to:
- Ranked Results Compared;
- Factor Delta versus Occurrence Plot;
- Process Ranked Factors;
• Conclusion Dyad KLM – AAS leading to Factor Potential for Alignment;
The table Factor Potential for Alignment illustrates how both firms individually value each
factor. When the values are seen in the combination of both firms, i.e. the dyad, five possible
combinations occur: HIGH-HIGH, HIGH-MEDIUM, MEDIUM-MEDIUM, MEDIUM-
LOW and LOW-LOW. To align an inter-dependent business process, it is deemed necessary
to consider factors that require attention according to the collaborating partner even if it is
not a high priority to the firm. To be able to collectively value each factor, it is necessary to
redefine:
- HIGH as being the combination of HIGH-HIGH and HIGH-MEDIUM;
- MEDIUM as MEDIUM-MEDIUM and MEDIUM-LOW;
- LOW as the combination of LOW-LOW.
From the DFA model a new characterization is produced for each business process that
reprioritizes the factors of the dyad in the three groups of HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW
2.9 CONCLUSION
The complete research design entails three sequential parts which are elaborated within the
next three chapters. These parts consisting of:
Model Building: The creation of the Delft Factor for Alignment Model by means of
literature research, Chapter 3. This is a generic model.
Theory Building: Transforming the model into a theory on Factors for Alignment for the
dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS. The conduct of interview
sessions, the analysis of AAS and KLM data separately, followed by a
comparison of the analysis results of both firms, Chapter 4.
Conclusion: Conclusion of the entire research regarding Factors for Alignment of

inter-dependent business processes at KLM and AAS, Chapter 5.
The position of each part in the research model and accompanying chapter is illustrated in
Figure 2-9.
R.P. Perié 75
Literature Research
to identify
Delft Factors for Alignment
To identify alignment at AAS To identify alignment at KLM
Interviews Interviews
AAS KLM
Triangulation Triangulation
AAS KLM
on business on business
process process
Questionnaires Questionnaires
AAS KLM
Analysis Analysis
AAS KLM
Analysis
Comparison
AAS - KLM
Delft
Factors
for Alignment
of Dyadic
Business Processes
at KLM & AAS
Figure 2-9: Research Set-up, Parts and Chapter Layout
76 R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE LITERATURE RESEARCH INTO FACTORS FOR ALIGNMENT
3 LITERATURE RESEARCH INTO FACTORS FOR ALIGNMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The research by Gibbs (2006, p.16) identifies the development of academic interest and
understanding of relational exchange as a key-mediating factor in a channel dyad over the
last 25 years. His review identifies the manifestations of the norms of behavior engendered
through relational exchange. Major constructs and their attributes (called factors in this
research) with detailed background were determined.
The intent of this literature research is two-fold. It is intended to understand alignment in the
context of the value system including airlines and airports, i.e. KLM and AAS. In this
research we recognize constructs, which are composed of factors, while these factors are
composed of attributes. These relations differ from the definitions of Gibbs (2006) only in
the sense of their use. The sequence of the constructs, factors and attributes does not suggest
a value ranking or hierarchy of either these constructs, factors or attributes. The definitions of
these constructs and Factors for Alignment are found in Table 3-13. These constructs have no
relation to those in the field of statistics.
Derived from our literature research, the development of the Delft Factors for Alignment
model (DFA model) is a vehicle to help create the required understanding of alignment. It is
noted that this literature research is, in general, based upon articles dated during the last ten
years, supplementing the research by Gibbs (2006). The most recent articles are of the year
2007.
This research brings the research by Gibbs (2006) a step further from relational exchange to
Factors for Alignment. It provides a research framework for finding the answer to the
research question previously defined as:
The following paragraphs describe the procedure to develop a generic factors for alignment
model called the Delft Factors for Alignment (DFA) model. It answers the first part of the
above mentioned research question. Paragraph 3.2 describes the methodology. The
composition of the long-, short and final lists is described in paragraph 3.3. The definition of
constructs is described in paragraph 3.4. Consequently defining the factors are described in
paragraph 3.5. The chapter is concluded by paragraph 3.6. Several figures, tables and
appendices illustrate the findings.
3.2 METHODOLOGY
Academic research by Gibbs (2006) resulted in seven constructs categorizing attributes
leading to relationship strength, derived from his relational exchange, see Figure 3-1. The
research by Gibbs (2006) serves as a starting point for this research. The seven constructs as
R.P. Perié 77
LITERATURE RESEARCH INTO FACTORS FOR ALIGNMENT ALL FOR ONE
developed by Gibbs (2006) cluster twenty-three attributes. These are designated as factors in
this research.
Figure 3-1: Gibbs Model

(Gibbs, 2006)
The goal of this literature research is to find factors which in previous research have been
found to determine alignment. To achieve this goal databases are selected as a source for the
articles (Scopus, Science Direct and Web of Science).
In order to come to a selection of scientific articles which provides valuable knowledge
regarding the required Factors for Alignment, a structured approach is followed. The article
long list is constructed by utilizing scientific article resources available online. Based on the
research question specific keywords derived from the research question as well as related
terminology and synonyms are used as search criteria, as shown in Table 3-1. In order to
narrow down the search results to an appropriate long list, several research domains in
succession are selected in addition to the keywords.
The main criterion which all articles need to satisfy is that the attributes for Factors for
Alignment extracted from the articles were to be the result of the article authors’ research, as
many authors only compiled results of other research without adding to the body of
knowledge and merely presenting a literature overview. These articles are designated as not
applicable (n/a) and were excluded from the list. The remaining search results contribute the
definitions of attributes which are clustered to define factors and subsequently cluster in
constructs. As defined in sub-paragraph 1.3.8, we define constructs to be composed of factors,
each of which is described by attributes – which are filtered from the articles.
It is anticipated that because of the great number of articles, the number of the attributes
extracted from the articles is large. Therefore, the attributes and consequently factors are
structured to build a useful model. This process leads to construction of the Delft Factors for
Alignment model. A visualization of the literature research process is provided in Figure 3-2
making use of one the subsequently to be provided constructs.
78 R.P. Perié
Figure 3-2: Literature Research Methodology, Phases 1 – 5.
3.3 COMPOSING THE ARTICLE LONG, SHORT AND FINAL LISTS

Four sets of search keys are used in succession based upon an initial broad perception of the
research question as well as developing insight during this process, to filter out articles
available and relevant for answering the research question. The search results due to each set
of search keys with the selected focus areas and data bases are considered to be not only
important for the replicability of this research but also as a subtotal of the literature search
data. By subsequently making use of different search keys and enlarging the scientific focus
areas, more and better search results are obtained. The applied search keys, scientific focus
areas, scientific databases and subsequent mutually exclusive search results by means of the
computer, which form the article long list, are presented in the Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Literature Search Data
Scientific
Search Keys Scientific Focus Area Results
Databases
Business
BPR Management Science Direct 43
Accounting
Business
Business
Management Science Direct 22
Alignment
Accounting
Business
Collaboration
Management Science Direct 42
Factors
Accounting
Social Sciences
Business Management and Accounting
Collaboration Scopus
Engineering
Partnership Web of Science 201
Psychology
Factors Science Direct
Economics
Decision Sciences
Total 308
The listing of the 308 articles that compose the long list can be found in Appendix B.1.
A subsequent filtering step has been executed resulting in the composition of the short list.
This step constitutes of scoring each article from the long list based upon its title and abstract
R.P. Perié 79
related to the research question. Again, research is focused upon the establishment of Factors
for Alignment. The rating possibilities are either a “0” meaning “not of interest” or a “1”
meaning “of interest”. This exercise resulted in the construction of categories ranging from a
0 – 4 star ranking by computing the total ratings of four individual researchers, resulting in
either 0%, 25% , 50%, 75% or 100% inter-rated reliability. The listing of articles that
compose the short list can be found in Appendix B.2.
The assumption made is that the articles with an inter-rated reliability of 50 % and higher are
relevant in conceptualizing the basis from which a model can be constructed, providing a
comprehensive view of factors relevant for dyadic alignment of business processes.
In order to progress from the short list to a more refined final list, full text analysis was
carried out by independent researchers. At the initial stages of the article search, it was
deemed that the search key “Business Process Reengineering” could be of possible value to
this research. As the full text analysis of the Business Process Reengineering articles derived
from the scientific focus area business, management and accounting progressed, it gradually
became apparent that the selection included in the short list was not of any value nor was it
applicable. This is due to the apparent focus of these articles upon procedures and results of
Business Process Reengineering and does not provide Factors for Alignment. Although
Business Process Reengineering was initially considered of relevance for this research, all
Business Process Reengineering articles, not providing factors, are therefore noted as not-
applicable (n/a). A small number of articles on the short list were not available for full text
analysis.
The results of the ranking procedure per search keys and the results of the articles full text
analysis regarding applicability are presented in the Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Article Ranking Results
Inter-rater Reliability Results based on Results N/A based on End Results

Search keys
based on title full text full text (Results – N/A)
100% 0 0 0
Business
Alignment 75% 2 1 1
50% 6 0 6
100% 4 0 4
Collaboration
75% 8 3 5
Factors
50% 11 1 10
Collaboration 100% 8 1 7
Partnership 75% 9 2 7
Factors 50% 23 12 11
Σ (End Results)
Total number of articles that conceptualize the basis for research for factors 51
The 51 articles are listed in the article final list in Appendix B.3. They form the basis for the
conceptualization of a comprehensive list of Factors for Alignment.
The final list marks the starting point of the next step in the literature research process.
The articles on the final list have all been subjected to full text analysis. This analysis has
also mapped several key characteristics for possible additional research, if required
(Appendix D). These characteristics are:
• The methodology applied; qualitative and/or quantitative;
80 R.P. Perié
• The research objective;

• The research context;
• The stakeholders, found in each article;
• The end-variable.
These characteristics provide a brief indication of the process of analysis to determine

attributes from scientific articles for Factors for Alignment.
3.4 DEFINING CONSTRUCTS

In the process of this research, while distributing the derived attributes to the titles of the
Gibbs constructs, it was found that not all filtered attributes could be assigned to these titles
of the Gibbs constructs. These additional attributes are primarily attributes that involve
partner selection and evaluation of the level of fit between two firms.
This research has defined the new constructs of competence fit, structure fit and culture fit,
composed of defining factors, based upon the additional attributes and supported by research
carried out by Vereecke and Muylle (2006), Bouw (2001), and Grotenhuis (2001, 2005).
Vereecke and Muylle (2006) present compatibility of corporate cultures, compatibility of
management philosophy and techniques, a strong sense of mutuality, and symmetry between
two parties as facilitators that need to be in place to make alignment successful.
Therefore, it is decided to adapt the Gibbs model in the development of the model for this
research by augmenting the titles of the Gibbs model by the three new constructs based upon
the attributes clustered in factors that formed the additional category, see Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: From Gibbs constructs to Delft Factors for Alignment
The attributes from the various scientific articles define their factors, based upon the
categorization related to alignment and the search keys. The derived attributes each
supporting their factor, as aspects of the additional constructs in the relation to the titles of
the Gibbs constructs, allow definition of competence fit, structure fit and culture fit, which
also appear in research by Bouw (2001) and Grotenhuis (2001, 2005).
R.P. Perié 81
The derived factors supporting their construct are described in paragraph 3.5 and in Table
3-13. This subsequently forms the Delft Factors for Alignment model (Figure 3-5).
The additional three constructs described above (competence fit, structure fit and culture fit)
are related to pre-alignment/collaborative and focused upon partner selection whereas the
subsequent seven constructs address what needs to be carried out once the alignment is
initiated.
Attributes that belong to one of these factors and consequently constructs are important in the
selection of an appropriate partner. Once the alignment has been initiated, these constructs
continue to play an important role, as they will also evolve throughout the alignment by inter-
organizational dynamics and learning.
Figure 3-4, shows how the constructs for alignment can be seen over time.
Figure 3-4: Constructs seen over Time
82 R.P. Perié
3.5 DEFINING THE FACTORS

The factors are part of the DFA model. In order to obtain understanding of the rationale of
the factors, key documents describe specific aspects. The key documents, listed in bold type
in Appendix B.3, present highlights which contribute to the DFA model. The brief abstracts
thereof are found in Appendix E. Based upon the literature research for this dissertation, the
Gibbs model is adapted as described in the previous paragraph.
3.5.1 LINKING ATTRIBUTES TO CONSTRUCTS AND FACTORS

In the following section the derived attributes from the final list in Appendix B.3 are linked
to the associated constructs, including designation of the article from which the attribute is
derived. In addition, it becomes apparent that the attributes can be grouped together due to
perceived similarities which lead to factors. The following tables illustrate the categorization
of the attributes linked to each construct. Subsequently, it is apparent that the attributes are
clustered to define factors. The relation between attribute and the article number, from which
it is derived, is indicated. The construct is positioned at the top of the table, the attributes are
in the columns and the factors are at the bottom of each column.
R.P. Perié 83
Table 3-3: Construct Competence Fit, associated Attributes and Factors
Competence Fit
history of collaboration 92, 115 collaboration champions 81, 112, 116, 118 adaptiveness 106, 126
collaboration experience 91, 70 management skills 91, 112, 114, 116, 137 flexibility 71, 81, 106, 112, 114, 116, 126
experienced and competent good technical and managerial capabilities
dynamic organization 60
collaboration manager 114 89, 110
appropriate experience and capabilities
patience 114 adaptability to new workflows 106
81, 136
past experience of partners 116 capacity management 60 effective organization 81
efficient use of available time and resources
experienced partner 81 communication skills 141
81
creativity 60 collaborative skills 115
strong and effective
relationship initiation abilities 88
leadership/personality/charisma 58, 118
visionary drive of key individuals 93 network governance 72
ability to translate commitment into
empowerment and capacity transfer 122
effective action 115
high quality project manager 81
right skills for organizational learning for
long term benefits 136
1. Cooperation Experience 2. Management Skills 3. Organizational Skills
Table 3-4: Construct Structure Fit, associated Attributes and Factors
Structure Fit
complementary objectives 81 organizational possibility to cooperate 144 geographical proximity 93, 110
fit of collaboration objective 91 compatibility 141 geographical dispersion 96
common goals 117 compatible goals and mission 118 distance and delays 92
mutually beneficial goals 118 compatible organizational structures and procedures 114
common benefits 110 compatible communication mechanisms 118
mutual benefits 81, 91, 108, 111, 116 compatible governance structures 118
symbiotic internal and external processes of
collaboration 136
compatibility of mode of operation 116
corporate stability 81
stability of organization 136
adequate internal organizational attributes 136
1. Objectives Fit 2. Structural Compatibility 3. Geographical Fit
84 R.P. Perié
Table 3-5: Construct Culture Fit, associated Attributes and Factors
Culture Fit
national or religious culture 58, 114 culture 112 common language 58

sociohistorical experience 124 traditional culture 106 ethical behavior 58
compatible disciplinary
background experience 81 effective cultures 58 background/experiences 71
natural language 92, 114 cultural processes 124 empathy 137
ability to give/receive constructive criticism
national value systems 122 prior analysis of different cultures 106 141
shared national values 115 institutional culture 93 same professional language 114
shared national values and norms 118 organizational/internal culture 106, 142 professionalism 141
balancing national perspectives of project team cultures in line with
both partners 91 compatible cultures 92, 114 organizational values and norms 136
compatibility of organizational culture 116 professional value systems 122
similar beliefs/approaches to a shared problem
118 shared professional values 115
power of organizational culture 58 shared professional values and norms 118
stability of personal and institutional balancing professional perspectives of both
circumstances 71 partners 91
corporate value systems 122
shared corporate values 115
shared corporate values and norms 118
balancing corporate perspectives of both
partners 91
1. National Cultural Fit 2. Corporate Culture Fit 3. Professional Culture Fit
Table 3-6: Construct Social Bonding, associated Attributes and Factors
Social Bonding
informal web of relations 71 relationship establishment 91

informal group relationships 117 relationship building 108, 114
social networks 126 development of a team culture/spirit 81, 136
importance of socialization phase 71 team-building 112, 136
social processes 124 personal involvement / interaction 116
more open and informal ways of working 136 building up personal relationship 116
personal relationship 91, 116
1. Social Network Development 2. Team Building
R.P. Perié 85
Table 3-7: Construct Competence Fit, associated Attributes and Factors
Trust
trust 58, 75, 89, 91, 92, 108, 111, 114, 118, 126 integrity 58 acceptance 106
mutual trust 116 truthfulness 58 acceptance / adoption 112
respect 58 honesty and openness 112, 116 break down barriers or preconceptions 112
mutual respect 117, 118 confidence 81, 116, 141 mediator 142
trusting relationships 115 credibility within the team 81 gain trust of organization 112
trust/positive relationship 137 goodwill 114 influence decision making in organization 115
no hidden agendas 81, 114
1. Attitude 2. Integrity 3. Mutual Acceptance
Table 3-8: Construct Dependency, associated Attributes and Factors
Dependency
dependency 110 power in the supply chain 74 visibility 118

interdependence 126 equality in power/dependency 116 image and reputation 118
interdependency of partners 144 power differentials 114
strategic interest 81 non-abuse of power 58
acknowledging the partner's specific interests 142
needs 74
complementary needs 118
mutual needs 91, 118
1. Mutual Dependence 2. Power Balance 3. Joint Image
86 R.P. Perié
Table 3-9: Construct Communication, associated Attributes and Factors
Communication
information exchange 109, awareness of interdependency

communication strategy 81 110 144 motivate decisions 106
open lines of communication
117 sharing vital information 75 knowledge of objectives 141 communicate the benefits 106
information sharing and
coordination 66, 73, 92, 96, mutual understanding of
open communication 118 108, 110, 126 organizational objectives 89 promote new process 106
effective communication 81, collaborative information mutual understanding 58, 114,
91 management system 73 116, 126
communication 60, 73, 91, sharing private information mutual understanding of
108, 112, 114 144 collaboration process 89
communication Management awareness of external
89 information system 89 environmental factors 116, 118
timely and truthful information resources 106, understanding of the supply chain
communication 126 126 56
inter-organizational knowledge of the network/supply
communication 72 information technology 72 chain 70
communication/teamwork 137 IT alignment 64 awareness of industrial issues 81
frequent cross-firm meetings electronically mediated
110 exchange 111 knowledge of course plan 141
quick response times 112 alignment of information 56
interaction 106
close personal interaction 91
face to face contact 81, 91
frequent and effective
communication/consultation
71, 116
1. Communication Intensity 2. Communication Systems 3. Communication Effectiveness 4. Communication Pro-activeness
R.P. Perié 87
Table 3-10: Construct Cooperation, associated Attributes and Factors
Cooperation
common vision 81, 112 assessment strategy 112 coordination 60 accountability plan 118
clear set of goals 114 assessment process 112 correct structure of collaboration 96 accountability, responsibility 58
forecasting collaboration 96 assessment of the outputs 91 structural collaboration 109 articulate responsibilities 112
selection of proper collaboration articulate position of stakeholders
type 96 impact assessment 118 partnership agreement 112 112
formal collaboration agreement 71 performance measurement 81 balanced membership 114 accountabilities 114
structure of the board for good
shared goals/scope/objectives 137 continuous measuring monitoring 58 governance 58 clear contract 137
consistent project objectives 71 evaluation and tracking progress 108 governance procedures 118 clear relationships and roles 122
clear roles and responsibilities 81,
clearly defined objectives 81 regular progress reviews 116 managing resources together 75 114
need to be clear about each other’s clearly defined responsibilities
objectives 112 progress monitoring 89 inter-organizational teams 91, 110 agreed by all parties 116
clearly defined objectives agreed
by all parties 116 continuous improvement 106 joint business planning 75 clearly defined responsibilities 118
agreeing goals for the collaboration formal project management
114 opportunities evaluation process 56 structures 71 shared responsibility 126
harmonise the differing objectives
81 reward structure 104 existence of project planning 71 share of responsibilities 91
clarity on how partners will
consistency of objectives 141 realistic project timescales 71 collaborate 112
explicit stakeholder relationships and
realistic aims 116 proper planning 53 responsibility 112
workable and empowering
relationships 93 development of project work plan 81 equality of contribution 116
idiosyncratic assets in relationship symbiotic relationship between
110 award and the program 112 co-specialized investments 110
right mix of individuals and realistic and sufficient detailed work
organization 114 plans 81 balanced costs and benefits 122
defined project milestones/project adequate proprietary benefit
logistics integration 110 planning 116 (investment/risk) 81
ensuring collaborators deliver as
promised 116 shared risk 126
shared offices 136 reciprocal benefits 108
task allocation 89
workload expectation factors 141
1. Cooperation Objectives 2. Cooperation Assessment 3. Coordination & Planning 4. Roles & Responsibilities
88 R.P. Perié
Table 3-11: Construct Commitment, associated Attributes and Factors
Commitment
organizational commitment attitude toward

commitment 60, 91, 92 88 share experience 108 teaching/learning 141 resource sharing 44
commitment to transfer of experience 108, learn from previous
collaboration 89 commitment at all levels 116 136 experience 91 appropriate budget 108
transfer of knowledge
emotional engagement senior management from practical experience
60 commitment 81 91 learning intention 88 devotion of time 81, 92, 126
enthusiasm and organizational support 108, investment in time and
commitment 81 114 knowledge transfer 110 training 106 resources 108, 116, 136
senior management support disseminating and sharing resource investments 106,
long-term loyalty 112 136 knowledge 106 training agreement 112 114, 126
top management commitment knowledge sharing 66, 73,
loyalty 58 116 144 learning from each other 70 staff availability 136
long-term strategic employees commitment 53, transferring and
interest to cooperate 144 60 integrating knowledge 91 organizational learning 58 adequate unit staffing 141
long-term relationship generated support for project share project management dedicated organizational
orientation 72 115 experience 81 development of skills 112 units 110
help each other with problem level of staff representation
ambition 71 solving 91 technology sharing 66 incentive to participate 142 92, 116, 136
financial incentives for
motivation and commitment
motivation 141 trade experience 106 management training 137 136
relationship of strong
willingness to participate reciprocal commitments
108 110
gain interest 108 risk sharing 66
enthusiasm 71 revenue sharing 66
1. Mind-set 2. Collaborative Support 3. Sharing 4. Learning & Training 5. Dedicated Resources
Table 3-12: Construct Conflict, associated Attributes and Factors
Conflict
conflict 58
conflict of interest 58
conflict management 60, 89
social and professional relationship issues 71
balancing of mutual incompatible considerations 114, 142
social order/issue 114
3.5.2 DEFINING THE FACTORS AND CONSTRUCTS

The next step involves arrangement of selected attributes per construct into distinct factors.
The result of this clustering exercise is the definition of factors in Table 3-13 which are, with
respect to each other, mutually exclusive and coherent. The result of the factor definition is
derived from the structure of the Gibbs model and augmented by the factors for pre-
alignment, as shown in Figure 3-3.
R.P. Perié 89
Table 3-13: Definitions Constructs and Factors for Alignment
Constructs Factors Definitions
The ability of appropriate collaboration partner selection, based on competence, structure and
Partner Selection
culture fit
The degree to which potential partners are suited for collaboration, based on individual or
Competence Fit
organizational proficiency and experience
Cooperation
The level of competence gained from previous cooperation experience(s)
Experience
Management Skills " employee competence in various management disciplines
Organizational " performance an organization displays in flexible utilization of their assets to adapt to
Skills their environment
The degree to which potential partners are suited for collaboration, based on each others
Structure Fit
objectives, organizational structure and geographical dispersion
" collaboration partners possess common goals
Objectives Fit
and objectives
Structural
The compatibility of organizational structure of potential collaboration partners
Compatibility
Geographical Fit The dispersion of separate organization locations
The degree to which potential partners are suited for collaboration, based on national, corporate
Culture Fit
and professional cultures
National Cultural The level to which potential partners are suited for collaboration based on national value systems
Fit and social-historical experiences
Corporate Culture " corporate value systems and
Fit institutional heritage
Professional " professional value systems and
Culture Fit language
Promoting the formation of social ties within the collaboration, through social network
Social Bonding
development and teambuilding efforts
Social Network
The degree to which a network of informal working relationships has been developed
Development
Team Building The cultivation level of individual employee involvement through team spirit development
Trust A state of inter- and intra-organizational confidence in the collaboration
Attitude The degree to which trust and respect are present in interpersonal relationships
Integrity " an honest, truthful and open organizational atmosphere exists
Mutual Acceptance The willingness to accept each other’s input
Dependency The reason to collaborate and the consequences of the collaboration on power balance and image
Mutual The degree to which an organization relies on partners to achieve strategic interests, unachievable
Dependence by the partners individually
" is conscious of the potentially dominant position of one of the
Power Balance
partners
" is conscious of the impact of each other’s performance on
Joint Image
external perception
Information exchange in order to facilitate and promote the collaboration on an inter- and intra-
Communication
organizational level
Communication
The utilization rate of information exchange channels
Intensity
Communication
The degree to which information exchange channels exist
Systems
Communication
" employees are aware of the reasons and objectives for collaboration
Effectiveness
Communication
" decisions concerning the collaboration are motivated and promoted
Pro-activeness
Joint establishment of collaborative objectives, joint coordination, definition and division of roles,
Cooperation
responsibilities and joint project assessment
Cooperation
The degree to which company visions and subsequent collaboration objectives are aligned
Objectives
Cooperation
" collaboration performance is continuously monitored and improved
Assessment
Coordination &
" structural procedures and planning of the collaboration are defined
Planning
90 R.P. Perié
Roles &
" accountabilities within the collaboration are clearly defined and divided
Responsibilities
Commitment The expression of organization dedication, in attitude and action, towards collaboration
Mind-set (Inter) The attitude towards inter-organizational collaboration
Collaborative
" intra-organizational commitment to the collaboration
Support (Intra)
Sharing The willingness to share experiences and knowledge within a collaboration
Learning &
" contribute to learning through sharing of experiences and knowledge
Training
Dedicated
" commit the necessary resources in order to achieve the collaboration objectives
Resources
Conflict Management and mitigation of conflicts
Conflict
Analyzing and mitigating social and professional relationship issues
Resolution
The definitions of the constructs in accordance with the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary
(1993) are provided in Appendix C.1, only to compare the result of formulation of definitions
by literature research and the agreed definitions for societal use.
A listing of all 31 factors of 254 clustered attributes supporting the 10 constructs is found in
sub-paragraph 3.5.1. In order to provide credibility and replicability of this research, Table
3-14 shows the relation between the factors and the literature upon which it is based. The
total number of these documents for each factor support definition of the associated construct.
A similar relation is available between attributes of all the factors, and the specific article
from which it has been derived, see sub-paragraph 3.5.1.
Table 3-14: Relation Factor and Article Number
Construct Factor Document Number
Partner Selection 60, 71, 74, 81, 88, 91, 92, 111, 116, 118, 136, 141
58, 60, 70, 71, 72, 81, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 106, 110, 112, 114, 115,
Competence Fit
116, 118, 122, 126, 136, 137, 141
Cooperation Experience 70, 81, 91, 92, 114, 115, 116, 136
Management Skills 58, 60, 81, 89, 91, 93, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 122, 136, 137
Organizational Skills 60, 71, 72, 81, 88, 106, 112, 114, 115, 116, 126, 141
Structure Fit 81, 91, 92, 93, 96, 108, 110, 111, 114, 116, 117, 118, 136, 141, 144
Objectives Fit 81, 91, 108, 110, 111, 117, 118, 116
Structural Compatibility 81, 114, 116, 118, 136, 141, 144
Geographical Fit 92, 93, 96, 110
58, 71, 81, 91, 92, 93, 106, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 122, 124, 136,
Culture Fit
137, 141, 142
National Culture Fit 58, 81, 91, 92, 114, 115, 118, 122, 124
Corporate Culture Fit 58, 71, 91, 92, 93, 106, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 122, 124, 142,
Professional Culture Fit 58, 71, 91, 114, 115, 118, 122, 136, 137, 141
Social Bonding 71, 81, 91, 108, 112, 114, 116, 117, 124, 126, 136
Social Network Development 71, 117, 124, 126, 136

Team Building 81, 91, 108, 112, 114, 116, 136
58, 75, 81, 89, 91, 92, 106, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
Trust
126, 137, 141, 142
R.P. Perié 91
Attitude 58, 75, 89, 91, 92, 108, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 126, 137, 116
Integrity 58, 81, 112, 114, 116, 141
Mutual Acceptance 106, 112, 115, 142
Dependency 58, 74, 81, 91, 110, 114, 116, 118, 126, 142, 144
Mutual Dependence 74, 81, 91, 110, 118, 126, 142, 144
Power Balance 58, 74, 114, 116
Joint Image 118
56, 58, 60, 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 81, 89, 91, 92, 96, 106, 108,
Communication
109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 126, 137, 141, 144
60, 71, 72, 73, 81, 89, 91, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118,
Communication Intensity
126, 137
Communication Systems 56, 64, 72, 73, 75, 89, 92, 96, 66, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 126, 144,
Communication Effectiveness 56, 58, 70, 81, 89, 114, 116, 118, 126, 141, 144
Communication Pro-activeness 106
53, 56, 58, 60, 71, 75, 81, 89, 91, 93, 96, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110,
Cooperation
112, 114, 116, 118, 122, 126, 136, 137, 141
Cooperation Objectives 71, 81, 93, 96, 110, 112, 114, 116, 137, 141
Cooperation Assessment 56, 58, 81, 89, 91, 104, 106, 108, 112, 116, 118
53, 58, 60, 71, 75, 81, 89, 91, 96, 109, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118,
Coordination & Planning
136, 141
Roles &Responsibilities 58, 81, 91, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 122, 126, 137
44, 53, 58, 60, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 81, 88, 89, 91, 92, 106, 108, 110,
Commitment
112, 114, 115, 116, 126, 136, 137, 141, 142, 144,
Mind-set 58, 60, 71, 72, 81, 89, 91, 92, 108, 112, 141, 144,
Collaborative Support 53, 60, 81, 88, 91, 108, 114, 115, 116, 136,
Sharing 66, 73, 81, 91, 106, 108, 110, 136, 144,
Learning & Training 58, 70, 88, 91, 106, 112, 137, 141, 142,
Dedicated Resources 44, 81, 92, 106, 108, 110, 114, 116, 126, 136, 141
Conflict 58, 60, 71, 89, 114, 142
Conflict Resolution 58, 60, 71, 89, 114, 142
3.6 CONCLUSION
We have defined constructs to be composed of factors, each of which is described by
attributes, which are filtered from the scientific articles during this literature research. The
definitions of the factors and constructs are found in Table 3-13. The filtered attributes,
categorized per factor and construct and related to the scientific articles, are found in sub-
paragraph 3.5.1.
The result of Chapter 3 is the so-called Delft factors for Alignment model, which is
illustrated as in Figure 3-5, This model answers the first part of the research question (Phases
1-5, Figure 3-2) Which are the factors for alignment?.
This framework is further used in this research as a measuring instrument for interviews and
a questionnaire in Chapter 4, as the research is focused upon development of a means of
measurement and not upon a demonstration of causal relations in dyadic business processes
at KLM and AAS.
92 R.P. Perié
Figure 3-5: DFA model
R.P. Perié 93
94 R.P. Perié
ALL FOR ONE RESEARCH OF BUSINESS PROCESSES AT KLM AND AAS
4 RESEARCH OF BUSINESS PROCESSES AT KLM AND AAS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The descriptions of the four dyadic business processes of KLM and AAS to be researched are
found in Appendix A. Brief extracts of each of these business processes is provided at the
beginning of each of the following paragraphs addressing the research of that process at
KLM and AAS.
The applied methodologies, deliverables and analysis are described in Chapter 2. In Chapter
3, the generic Delft Factors for Alignment (DFA) model is concluded from literature research.
This DFA model as instrument will be used among employees of the dyadic business
processes of the firms under consideration, i.e. KLM and AAS. The factors as defined by this
model are given a performance score by their employees on how this factor is perceived at
the present time (status quo). The outcome of this survey is presented to management of the
participating firms. Subsequently, based on these results, management of the firms, i.e. KLM
and AAS, can take appropriate action to align those factors that scored poorly in their view
by addressing the effectiveness and efficiency of the researched business processes.
The research in Chapter 4 provides the full answer to the research question by completing the
phases 6 to 8, illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Continuation Research Approach phases 6 - 8
This model is applied to the four dyadic business processes, as described in sub-paragraph
1.3.9, in the following paragraphs 4.2 – 4.5 to demonstrate the specific Factors for Alignment
of that process. Paragraphs 4.2 – 4.5 follow a similar outline to present the results of each
case study:
R.P. Perié 95
RESEARCH OF BUSINESS PROCESSES AT KLM AND AAS ALL FOR ONE
• Brief extract of process description;

• KLM analysis:
- Interview Results: factor occurrence data based on the issues mentioned in
interviews;
- Questionnaire Results: factor delta score based on the average response to the
questionnaire;
- Combining Interview and Questionnaire Results: factor occurrence and delta
multiplied and associated plot;
• AAS analysis:
- Interview Results: factor occurrence data based on the issues mentioned in
interviews;
- Questionnaire Results: factor delta score based on the average response to the
questionnaire;
- Combining Interview and Questionnaire Results: factor occurrence and delta
multiplied and associated plot;
• Conclusion dyad KLM – AAS: comparison of KLM and AAS analysis results
providing specific Factors for Alignment of the business process.
It is noted that the research results of all dyadic business processes have been discussed with
the respective supervisors at KLM and AAS before presentation of these research results to
the respondents at KLM and AAS who have provided their contribution to this research.
96 R.P. Perié
4.2 CASE I: ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY

This dyadic business process is described at Appendix A. A brief extract is provided below.
The aviation sector consisting of hub, hub-operator and air traffic control (AAS, KLM,
LVNL), has a common interest in striving for jointly formulated recommendations that
propose more efficient operations in combination with room to grow in relation to perceived
nuisance. Therefore they have decided that, next to preparing themselves individually for the
overt process with other stakeholders, they will do so collectively with the aim of providing
aviation-wide proposals. Within the larger collaboration of the aviation sector, the relation
between AAS and KLM in the context of environmental capacity is one business process of
which the alignment of AAS and KLM is examined.
4.2.1 KLM ANALYSIS

Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airport, Environmental
and Public Affairs, Network - Strategy & Schiphol Projects and Flight operations – ATM
Strategy & Charges, which operate at the strategic and tactical level. Interview transcripts, 5
in total for the process of Environmental Capacity, have all undergone an analysis focused
upon extracting issues. This extraction and subsequent linking to factors is performed in
coordination by research at AAS. Such coordination is deemed to be invaluable to ensure
comparable results of the analyses of the firms.
A complete list of the issue collection per respondent as well as the associated factors is
available in Appendix F, which has a restricted distribution due to the company confidential
nature of its contents. Table 4-1 provides an overview of the extracted factor occurrence data,
as discussed in sub-paragraph 2.4.2.
R.P. Perié 97
Table 4-1: KLM Environmental Capacity Factor Occurrence Matrix
Respondent nr.
1 2 3 4 5
nr. Factor Name Abbr. Factor Occurrence
1 Cooperation Experience CE 0
2 Management Skills MS 0
3 Organisational Skills OS 0
4 Objectives Fit OF 1 2 1 2 1 7
5 Structural Compatibility SC 2 1 2 2 1 8
6 Geographical Fit GF 0
7 National Culture Fit NCF 0
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF 1 2 2 3 8
9 Professional Culture Fit PCF 0
10 Social Network Development SND 1 1
11 Team Building TB 0
12 Attitude Att 3 3 2 8
13 Integrity Int 4 2 7 3 2 18
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 1 4 2 3 10
15 Mutual Dependence MD 2 1 2 1 6
16 Power Balance PB 1 1 2
17 Joint Image JI 1 3 1 5
18 Communication Intensity CI 16 6 3 4 4 33
19 Communication Systems CS 1 1 2
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 2 1 1 4 8
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 6 2 2 5 5 20
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 2 2 6 4 3 17
23 Cooperation Assessment CA 4 1 1 6
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 11 4 7 6 2 30
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R 7 5 3 1 16
26 Mind-set Mns 1 1 3 2 7
27 Collaborative Support CSp 2 1 1 1 5
28 Sharing Sh 1 1
29 Learning & Training L&T 0
30 Dedicated Resources DR 4 1 5
31 Conflict Resolution CR 1 1 2
It is noted that the following Factors for Alignment have occurred in a significant number, i.e.
in order of magnitude Communication Intensity, Coordination & Planning, Communication
Pro-activeness, Integrity, Cooperation Objectives, Roles & Responsibilities and Mutual
Acceptance. The scoring of a zero implies that these factors, in the context of this dyadic
business process, are not deemed to be of relative importance in their relation to the other
factors.
Questionnaire Results
Following the interview, each respondent (n = 5) completes the questionnaire introduced in
Chapter 2 of this research. The result is an average score for each of the 31 factors, see sub-
paragraph 2.5.2. Figure 4-2 provides these average scores, as well as the associated delta
factor score, see sub-paragraph 2.5.4.
98 R.P. Perié
6
Avarage FactorDelta
1
26. Mind-set
4. Objectives Fit
13. Integrity
12. Attitude

28. Sharing
17. Joint Image
11. Team Building


6. Geographical Fit


16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-2: KLM Environmantel Capacity Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta
Combining Interview and Questionnaire Results

By comparing the results of the interviews and questionnaire, it is observed that the top ten of
both methods only result in four similar factors (Table 4-2). These factors are
Communication Intensity, Cooperation Objectives, Structural Compatibility and Corporate
Culture Fit. As the methods do not provide corresponding rankings of the Factors for
Alignment, the next step is to combine the two results in order to obtain an unambiguous
answer to the question, of which factors have potential for alignment in this case.
Table 4-2: KLM Environmental Capacity Ranked Results Compared

Factor Occurrence Factor Name Rank Factor Name Factor Delta
33 Communication Intensity 1 Cooperation Experience 4,4
30 Coordination & Planning 2 Objectives Fit 4,4
20 Communication Pro-activeness 3 Structural Compatibility 4,4
18 Integrity 4 Mutual Dependence 4,4
17 Cooperation Objectives 5 Communication Effectiveness 4,2
16 Roles & Responsibilities 6 Corporate Culture Fit 4,0
10 Mutual Acceptance 7 Team Building 4,0
8 Structural Compatibility 8 Cooperation Objectives 4,0
8 Corporate Culture Fit 9 Communication Intensity 3,8
8 Attitude 10 Professional Culture Fit 3,7
8 Communication Effectiveness 11 Organisational Skills 3,4
7 Objectives Fit 12 Mutual Acceptance 3,4
7 Mind-set 13 Power Balance 3,2
6 Mutual Dependence 14 Communication Pro-activeness 3,2
6 Cooperation Assessment 15 Mind-set 3,0
5 Joint Image 16 Communication Systems 2,8
5 Collaborative Support 17 Geographical Fit 2,4
5 Dedicated Resources 18 Management Skills 2,3
2 Power Balance 19 Attitude 2,3
2 Communication Systems 20 Joint Image 2,3
2 Conflict Resolution 21 Coordination & Planning 2,3
1 Social Network Development 22 Collaborative Support 2,2
1 Sharing 23 Integrity 2,1
0 Cooperation Experience 24 Cooperation Assessment 2,1
0 Management Skills 25 Conflict Resolution 2,0
0 Organisational Skills 26 Roles & Responsibilities 1,8
0 Geographical Fit 27 Dedicated Resources 1,8
0 National Culture Fit 28 National Culture Fit 1,3
0 Professional Culture Fit 29 Sharing 1,1
0 Team Building 30 Learning & Training 1,0
0 Learning & Training 31 Social Network Development 0,8
R.P. Perié 99
By plotting the factor occurrence on the X-axis and the factor delta on the Y-axis, Figure 4-3
illustrates the position of each of the factors in the DFA model according to the three
arbitrary groups introduced in paragraph 2.6.
Figure 4-3: KLM Environmental Capacity Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
By multiplying the results of interview and questionnaire, as in Table 4-3, a single ranking
appears. This ranking is used to identify which factors have potential for alignment. In this
case, Communication Intensity, Coordination & Planning, Cooperation Objectives and
Communication Pro-Activeness are the top scoring factors.
100 R.P. Perié

Table 4-3: KLM Environmental Capacity Process Ranked Factors
Potential
Factor Name abbr. Av. Delta Av. Occurrence (n=5) Multiple Norm. Multiple (NM)
for Alignment
Communication Intensity CI 3,8 6,6 25,1 1,00
Coordination & Planning C&P 2,3 6,0 13,8 0,55
HIGH Cooperation Objectives CO 4,0 3,4 13,6 0,54
Communication Pro-activeness CP 3,2 4,0 12,8 0,51
Integrity Int 2,1 3,6 7,6 0,30
Structural Compatibility SC 4,4 1,6 7,0 0,28
Mutual Acceptance MA 3,4 2,0 6,8 0,27
Communication Effectiveness CEff 4,2 1,6 6,7 0,27
MEDIUM Corporate Culture Fit 4,0 1,6 6,4 0,26
CCF
Objectives Fit OF 4,4 1,4 6,2 0,25
Roles & Responsibilities R&R 1,8 3,2 5,8 0,23
Mutual Dependence MD 4,4 1,2 5,3 0,21
Mind-set Mns 3,0 1,4 4,2 0,17
Attitude Att 2,3 1,6 3,7 0,15
Cooperation Assessment CA 2,1 1,2 2,5 0,10
Joint Image JI 2,3 1,0 2,3 0,09
Collaborative Support CSp 2,2 1,0 2,2 0,09
Dedicated Resources DR 1,8 1,0 1,8 0,07
Power Balance PB 3,2 0,4 1,3 0,05
Communication Systems CS 2,8 0,4 1,1 0,04
Conflict Resolution CR 2,0 0,4 0,8 0,03
LOW Sharing Sh 1,1 0,2 0,2 0,01
Social Network Development SND 0,8 0,2 0,2 0,01
Cooperation Experience CE 4,4 0 0 0
Team Building TB 4,0 0 0 0
Professional Culture Fit PCF 3,7 0 0 0
Organisational Skills OS 3,4 0 0 0
Geographical Fit GF 2,4 0 0 0
Management Skills MS 2,3 0 0 0
National Culture Fit NCF 1,3 0 0 0
Learning & Training L&T 1,0 0 0 0
R.P. Perié 101

4.2.2 AMSTERDAM AIRPORT SCHIPHOL ANALYSIS

Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airport Development
and Capacity Management, which operate at the strategic level. Interview transcripts, 3 in
total for the process of Environmental Capacity, have all undergone an analysis focused upon
extracting issues. This extraction and subsequent linking to factors is performed in
coordination by research at KLM. Such coordination is deemed to be invaluable to ensure
available in Appendix F, which has a restricted distribution due to the company confidential
Table 4-4: AAS Environmental Capacity Factor Occurrence Matrix
Respondent nr.
8 9 10
4 Objectives Fit OF 2 2 4
5 Structural Compatibility SC 1 1
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF 0
10 Social Network Development SND 0
12 Attitude Att 1 1 2
13 Integrity Int 2 2 4
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 0
15 Mutual Dependence MD 1 1
16 Power Balance PB 0
17 Joint Image JI 1 1
18 Communication Intensity CI 2 7 3 12
19 Communication Systems CS 0
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 4 4
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 5 1 6
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 3 1 3 7
23 Cooperation Assessment CA 1 1
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 6 7 3 16
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R 5 8 2 15
26 Mind-set Mns 3 1 4
27 Collaborative Support CSp 0
28 Sharing Sh 0
30 Dedicated Resources DR 1 1 2
31 Conflict Resolution CR 1 2 3
102 R.P. Perié

in order of magnitude Coordination & Planning, Roles & Responsibilities, Communication
Intensity, Cooperation Objectives, and Communication Pro-activeness. The scoring of a zero
implies that these factors, in the context of this dyadic business process, are not deemed to be
of relative importance in their relation to the other factors.
6
Avarage FactorDelta

26. Mind-set

12. Attitude
13. Integrity

4. Objectives Fit
28. Sharing
17. Joint Image
11. Team Building

6. Geographical Fit

16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-4: AAS Environmental Capacity Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in five similar factors (Table 4-5). These factors are Coordination
& Planning, Roles & Responsibilities, Communication Intensity, Communication Pro-
activeness and Objectives Fit. Since the methods do not provide corresponding rankings of
the Factors for Alignment, the next step is to combine the two in order to obtain an
unambiguous answer to the question, of which factors have potential for alignment in this
case.
R.P. Perié 103

Table 4-5: AAS Environmental Capacity Ranked Results Compared

16 Coordination & Planning 1 Team Building 4,0
15 Roles & Responsibilities 2 Structural Compatibility 3,3
12 Communication Intensity 3 Cooperation Assessment 3,3
7 Cooperation Objectives 4 Joint Image 2,7
6 Communication Pro-activeness 5 Communication Intensity 2,7
4 Objectives Fit 6 Communication Pro-activeness 2,7
4 Integrity 7 Coordination & Planning 2,7
4 Communication Effectiveness 8 Roles & Responsibilities 2,7
4 Mind-set 9 Geographical Fit 2,5
3 Conflict Resolution 10 Objectives Fit 2,3
2 Attitude 11 Integrity 2,3
2 Dedicated Resources 12 Mutual Acceptance 2,3
1 Structural Compatibility 13 Communication Effectiveness 2,3
1 Mutual Dependence 14 Conflict Resolution 2,2
1 Joint Image 15 Organisational Skills 2,0
1 Cooperation Assessment 16 Corporate Culture Fit 2,0
0 Cooperation Experience 17 Mutual Dependence 2,0
0 Management Skills 18 Power Balance 2,0
0 Organisational Skills 19 Communication Systems 2,0
0 Geographical Fit 20 Cooperation Objectives 2,0
0 National Culture Fit 21 Collaborative Support 2,0
0 Corporate Culture Fit 22 Learning & Training 2,0
0 Professional Culture Fit 23 Cooperation Experience 1,7
0 Social Network Development 24 Management Skills 1,7
0 Team Building 25 National Culture Fit 1,7
0 Mutual Acceptance 26 Professional Culture Fit 1,7
0 Power Balance 27 Attitude 1,7
0 Communication Systems 28 Sharing 1,7
0 Collaborative Support 29 Dedicated Resources 1,7
0 Sharing 30 Mind-set 1,3
0 Learning & Training 31 Social Network Development 0,7
Figure 4-5: AAS Environmental Capacity Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
104 R.P. Perié

appears. This ranking is used to identify which factors are applicable have potential for
alignment. In this case, Coordination & Planning, Roles & Responsibilities and
Communication Intensity are the top scoring factors.
Table 4-6: AAS Environmental Capacity Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
HIGH Roles & Responsibilities R&R 2,7 5,0 13,5 0,94
Cooperation Objectives CO 2,0 2,3 4,7 0,32
MEDIUM Objectives Fit OF 2,3 1,3 3,1 0,21
Mind-set Mns 1,3 1,3 1,7 0,12
Attitude Att 1,7 0,7 1,1 0,08
Joint Image JI 2,7 0,3 0,9 0,06
Mutual Acceptance MA 2,3 0 0 0
LOW Organisational Skills OS 2,0 0 0 0
Corporate Culture Fit CCF 2,0 0 0 0
Power Balance PB 2,0 0 0 0
Communication Systems CS 2,0 0 0 0
Collaborative Support CSp 2,0 0 0 0
Sharing Sh 1,7 0 0 0
Social Network Development SND 0,7 0 0 0
4.2.3 CONCLUSION ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY DYAD KLM - AAS

Table 4-7 incorporates the values regarding the Factors for Alignment of both firms
individually. It can be seen that KLM and AAS both perceive each of the factors
Communication Intensity, Roles & Responsibilities and Coordination & Planning to be a
factor for alignment. KLM respondents value the majority of factors as HIGH – MEDIUM,
whereas AAS is characterized by a dominant value of MEDIUM – LOW. Due to the
respondents’ appreciation in the interview transcripts, see restricted appendices, more critical
comments are provided by KLM. Due to a score of 0 in the Table Process Ranked Factors
above, the designation of the firm in the Table Factor Potential for Alignment below is
printed in light grey and italics in the column LOW.
R.P. Perié 105

Table 4-7: Environmental Capacity Factor Potential for Alignment

Potential for Improvement
Factor Name abbr.
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
Cooperation Experience CE KLM-AAS
Management Skills MS KLM-AAS
Organisational Skills OS KLM-AAS
Objectives Fit OF KLM-AAS
Structural Compatibility SC KLM AAS
Geographical Fit GF KLM-AAS
National Culture Fit NCF KLM-AAS
Corporate Culture Fit CCF KLM AAS
Professional Culture Fit PCF KLM-AAS
Social Network Development SND KLM-AAS
Team Building TB KLM-AAS
Attitude Att KLM
Integrity Int KLM-AAS
Mutual Acceptance MA KLM AAS
Mutual Dependence MD KLM AAS
Power Balance PB KLM-AAS
Joint Image JI KLM-AAS
Communication Intensity CI KLM-AAS
Communication Systems CS KLM-AAS
Communication Effectiveness CEff KLM-AAS
Communication Pro-activeness CP KLM AAS
Cooperation Objectives CO KLM AAS
Cooperation Assessment CA KLM-AAS
Coordination & Planning C&P KLM-AAS
Roles & Responsibilities R&R AAS KLM
Mind-set Mns KLM
Collaborative Support CSp KLM-AAS
Sharing Sh KLM-AAS
Learning & Training L&T KLM-AAS
Dedicated Resources DR KLM-AAS
Conflict Resolution CR KLM-AAS
Table 4-8 illustrates the factors for the case Environmental Capacity. As conclusion and
answer to the research question, Communication Intensity, Coordination & Planning,
Communication Pro-activeness, Cooperation Objectives and Roles & Responsibilities, are
the primary factors for alignment of the process of Environmental Capacity.
The factors Objectives Fit, Integrity, Communication Effectiveness, Structural Compatibility,
Mutual Dependence, Corporate Culture Fit and Mutual Acceptance are the secondary factors
for alignment of the process of Environmental Capacity.
106 R.P. Perié

Table 4-8: Environmental Capacity Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM
AAS KLM
Communication Intensity Communication Intensity
Coordination & Planning Coordination & Planning
HIGH Communication Pro-activeness Communication Pro-activeness
Cooperation Objectives Cooperation Objectives
Roles & Responsibilities Roles & Responsibilities
Objectives Fit Objectives Fit
Integrity Integrity
Communication Effectiveness Communication Effectiveness
MEDIUM Structural Compatibility Structural Compatibility
Mutual Dependence Mutual Dependence
Corporate Culture Fit Corporate Culture Fit
Mutual Acceptance Mutual Acceptance
Attitude Attitude
Joint Image Joint Image
Cooperation Assessment Cooperation Assessment
Mind-set Mind-set
Dedicated Resources Dedicated Resources
Conflict Resolution Conflict Resolution
Social Network Development Social Network Development
Power Balance Power Balance
Communication Systems Communication Systems
LOW Collaborative Support Collaborative Support
Sharing Sharing
Cooperation Experience Cooperation Experience
Management Skills Management Skills
Organisational Skills Organisational Skills
Geographical Fit Geographical Fit
National Culture Fit National Culture Fit
Professional Culture Fit Professional Culture Fit
Team Building Team Building
Learning & Training Learning & Training
R.P. Perié 107

108 R.P. Perié

4.3 CASE II: NETWORK PLANNING

Airlines and airports develop their network. In June 2007 the Netherlands Government issued
a document to KLM and AAS regarding their formulation of a vision with respect to the
creation of a joint network planning (Alders, 2007). This document officially requested the
definition of the specific network required for a Main Port. This definition would provide
insight in the flights supporting the Main Port function and consequently identify those
flights which could be denied access to the Main Port by a new version of the Netherlands
Aviation Act. This new regulation strives to meet two objectives in relation to the Main Port,
i.e. reducing the perception of nuisance while retaining or increasing its economic benefits.
In an ideal situation the Main Port could continue to develop, without increasing the
perception of nuisance in the surrounding area.
4.3.1 KLM ANALYSIS

Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airport, Environmental
and Public Affairs, Network - Strategy & Schiphol Projects and Flight operations – ATM
Strategy & Charges, which operate at the strategic and tactical level. Interview transcripts, 4
in total for the process of Network Planning, have all undergone an analysis focused on
coordination by research at AAS. Such coordination is deemed to be invaluable to ensure
available in Appendix G, which has a restricted distribution due to the company confidential
R.P. Perié 109

Table 4-9: KLM Network Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix
Respondent nr.
6 7 8 9
4 Objectives Fit OF 3 2 1 6
5 Structural Compatibility SC 3 1 4
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF 2 2
12 Attitude Att 2 2
13 Integrity Int 4 2 6
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 2 1 3
15 Mutual Dependence MD 2 2
16 Power Balance PB 1 1
17 Joint Image JI 1 1 2
18 Communication Intensity CI 5 2 2 3 12
19 Communication Systems CS 2 2
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 2 1 1 4
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 3 1 1 5
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 3 1 3 2 9
23 Cooperation Assessment CA 1 1 2
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 8 2 3 3 16
26 Mind-set Mns 3 1 4
27 Collaborative Support CSp 3 1 4
28 Sharing Sh 0
30 Dedicated Resources DR 0
31 Conflict Resolution CR 1 1
in order of magnitude Coordination & Planning, Communication Intensity, Cooperation
Objectives, Role & Responsibilities, Integrity and Objectives Fit. The scoring of a zero
implies that these factors, in the context of this dyadic business process, are not deemed to be
of relative importance in their relation to the other factors.
110 R.P. Perié

6
Avarage FactorDelta

26. Mind-set
4. Objectives Fit
12. Attitude
13. Integrity
28. Sharing
17. Joint Image
11. Team Building


6. Geographical Fit


16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-6: KLM Network Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in six similar factors (Table 4-10). These factors are Coordination
& Planning, Roles & Responsibilities, Objectives Fit, Communication Pro-activeness,
Structural Compatibility and Mind-Set. Since the methods do not provide corresponding
rankings of the Factors for Alignment, the next step is to combine the two in order to obtain
an unambiguous answer to the question, of which factors have potential for alignment in this
case.
R.P. Perié 111

Table 4-10: KLM Network Planning Ranked Results Compared

16 Coordination & Planning 1 Mind-set 5,3
12 Communication Intensity 2 Objectives Fit 4,8
9 Cooperation Objectives 3 Team Building 4,3
7 Roles & Responsibilities 4 Coordination & Planning 4,1
6 Objectives Fit 5 Communication Pro-activeness 4,0
6 Integrity 6 Collaborative Support 4,0
5 Communication Pro-activeness 7 Cooperation Experience 3,8
4 Structural Compatibility 8 Organisational Skills 3,8
4 Communication Effectiveness 9 Structural Compatibility 3,8
4 Mind-set 10 Roles & Responsibilities 3,6
4 Collaborative Support 11 Integrity 3,5
3 Mutual Acceptance 12 Communication Intensity 3,5
2 Corporate Culture Fit 13 Communication Effectiveness 3,5
2 Attitude 14 Cooperation Objectives 3,5
2 Mutual Dependence 15 Joint Image 3,3
2 Joint Image 16 Attitude 3,1
2 Communication Systems 17 Cooperation Assessment 3,1
2 Cooperation Assessment 18 Professional Culture Fit 3,0
1 Power Balance 19 Mutual Acceptance 2,8
1 Conflict Resolution 20 Power Balance 2,8
0 Cooperation Experience 21 Communication Systems 2,8
0 Management Skills 22 Management Skills 2,4
0 Organisational Skills 23 Geographical Fit 2,3
0 Geographical Fit 24 National Culture Fit 2,3
0 National Culture Fit 25 Conflict Resolution 2,1
0 Professional Culture Fit 26 Corporate Culture Fit 2,0
0 Social Network Development 27 Social Network Development 2,0
0 Team Building 28 Dedicated Resources 2,0
0 Sharing 29 Mutual Dependence 1,5
0 Learning & Training 30 Sharing 1,5
0 Dedicated Resources 31 Learning & Training 1,5
Figure 4-7: KLM Network Planning Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
112 R.P. Perié

appears. This ranking is used to identify which factors have potential alignment. In this case,
Coordination & Planning and Communication Intensity are the top scoring factors.
Table 4-11: KLM Network Planning Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
HIGH Communication Intensity CI 3,5 3,0 10,5 0,64
Mind-set Mns 5,3 1,0 5,3 0,32
MEDIUM Integrity Int 3,5 1,5 5,3 0,32
Joint Image JI 3,3 0,5 1,7 0,10
Attitude Att 3,1 0,5 1,6 0,09
Corporate Culture Fit CCF 2,0 0,5 1,0 0,06
LOW Cooperation Experience 3,8 0 0 0
CE
Dedicated Resources DR 2,0 0 0 0
Sharing Sh 1,5 0 0 0
R.P. Perié 113


Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airport Development,
Marketing & Account Management and Corporate Legal, which operate at the strategic level.
Interview transcripts, 7 in total for the process of Network Planning, have all undergone an
analysis focused on extracting issues. This extraction and subsequent linking to factors is
performed in coordination by research at KLM. Such coordination is deemed to be invaluable
to ensure comparable results of the analyses of the firms.
available in Appendix G, which has a restricted distribution due to the company confidential
nature of its contents. Table 4-12 provides an overview of the extracted factor occurrence
data, as discussed in sub-paragraph 2.4.2.
Table 4-12: AAS Network Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix
Respondent nr.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Objectives Fit OF 1 1 2 1 9 2 16
5 Structural Compatibility SC 2 2
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF 1 1
10 Social Network Development SND 1 1
12 Attitude Att 2 2
13 Integrity Int 2 2 3 3 10
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 1 1 1 1 4
15 Mutual Dependence MD 1 2 2 3 8
16 Power Balance PB 1 1
17 Joint Image JI 4 4
18 Communication Intensity CI 6 1 2 2 1 12
19 Communication Systems CS 1 1
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 3 1 4
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 2 1 1 2 6
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 3 1 1 3 3 4 15
23 Cooperation Assessment CA 0
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 2 1 1 2 6
26 Mind-set Mns 2 2 1 5
27 Collaborative Support CSp 2 2 2 6
28 Sharing Sh 1 1 1 3
31 Conflict Resolution CR 0
114 R.P. Perié

in order of magnitude Objectives Fit, Cooperation Objectives, Communication Intensity,
Integrity, Mutual Dependence, Communication Pro-activeness, Coordination & Planning,
and Collaborative Support. The scoring of a zero implies that these factors, in the context of
this dyadic business process, are not deemed to be of relative importance in their relation to
the other factors.
6
Avarage FactorDelta

26. Mind-set

4. Objectives Fit
12. Attitude
13. Integrity
28. Sharing
17. Joint Image
11. Team Building

6. Geographical Fit

16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-8: AAS Network Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in three similar factors (Table 4-13). These factors are Integrity,
Coordination & Planning and Mutual Acceptance. Since the methods do not provide
corresponding rankings of the Factors for Alignment, the next step is to combine the two in
order to obtain an unambiguous answer to the question, of which factors have potential for
alignment in this case.
R.P. Perié 115

Table 4-13: AAS Network Planning Ranked Results Compared

16 Objectives Fit 1 Team Building 4,0
15 Cooperation Objectives 2 Mutual Acceptance 3,7
12 Communication Intensity 3 Coordination & Planning 3,7
10 Integrity 4 Roles & Responsibilities 3,4
8 Mutual Dependence 5 Geographical Fit 3,3
6 Communication Pro-activeness 6 Cooperation Assessment 3,3
6 Coordination & Planning 7 Conflict Resolution 3,0
6 Collaborative Support 8 Management Skills 2,9
5 Mind-set 9 Integrity 2,9
4 Mutual Acceptance 10 Organisational Skills 2,7
4 Joint Image 11 Power Balance 2,7
4 Communication Effectiveness 12 Communication Pro-activeness 2,7
3 Roles & Responsibilities 13 Collaborative Support 2,7
3 Sharing 14 Mind-set 2,6
2 Structural Compatibility 15 Objectives Fit 2,4
2 Attitude 16 National Culture Fit 2,3
1 Corporate Culture Fit 17 Corporate Culture Fit 2,3
1 Social Network Development 18 Attitude 2,3
1 Power Balance 19 Joint Image 2,3
1 Communication Systems 20 Cooperation Objectives 2,3
0 Cooperation Experience 21 Sharing 2,3
0 Management Skills 22 Cooperation Experience 2,1
0 Organisational Skills 23 Communication Intensity 2,1
0 Geographical Fit 24 Dedicated Resources 2,1
0 National Culture Fit 25 Mutual Dependence 2,0
0 Professional Culture Fit 26 Communication Effectiveness 1,9
0 Team Building 27 Learning & Training 1,9
0 Cooperation Assessment 28 Structural Compatibility 1,7
0 Learning & Training 29 Communication Systems 1,6
0 Dedicated Resources 30 Social Network Development 1,4
0 Conflict Resolution 31 Professional Culture Fit 1,3
Figure 4-9: AAS Network Planning Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
116 R.P. Perié

By multiplying the results of interview and questionnaire, as in Table 4-14 a single ranking
case, Objectives Fit, Cooperation Objectives, Integrity, Communication Intensity and
Coordination & Planning are the top scoring factors.
Table 4-14: AAS Network Planning Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
HIGH Integrity Int 2,9 1,4 4,1 0,76
MEDIUM Mind-set 2,6 0,7 1,9 0,34
Mns
Joint Image JI 2,3 0,6 1,3 0,24
Sharing Sh 2,3 0,4 1,0 0,18
Attitude Att 2,3 0,3 0,7 0,12
Social Network Development SND 1,4 0,1 0,2 0,04
LOW Cooperation Assessment 3,3 0 0 0
CA
Conflict Resolution CR 3,0 0 0 0
4.3.3 CONCLUSION NETWORK PLANNING DYAD KLM – AAS

individually. It can be seen that KLM and AAS both perceive each of the factors
Communication Intensity and Coordination & Planning to be a factor for alignment. AAS
respondents value the majority of factors as HIGH – MEDIUM, whereas KLM is
characterized by a dominant value of MEDIUM – LOW. Due to the respondents’
appreciation in the interview transcripts, see restricted appendices, more critical comments
are provided by AAS. Due to a score of 0 in the Table Process Ranked Factors above, the
designation of the firm in the Table Factor Potential for Alignment below is printed in light
grey and italics in the column LOW.
R.P. Perié 117

Table 4-15: Network Planning Factor Potential for Alignment

Factor Name abbr.
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
Objectives Fit OF AAS KLM
Corporate Culture Fit CCF KLM-AAS
Social Network Development SND KLM -AAS
Attitude Att KLM-AAS
Integrity Int AAS KLM
Mutual Acceptance MA AAS KLM
Mutual Dependence MD AAS KLM
Joint Image JI AAS KLM
Communication Pro-activeness CP KLM-AAS
Cooperation Objectives CO AAS KLM
Roles & Responsibilities R&R KLM-AAS
Mind-set Mns KLM-AAS
Sharing Sh KLM -AAS
Table 4-16 illustrates the factors for the case Network Planning. As conclusion and answer to
research question, Communication Intensity, Coordination & Planning, Objectives Fit,
Integrity and Cooperation Objectives, are the primary factors for alignment of the process
Network Planning.
The factors Communication Pro-activeness, Roles & Responsibilities, Mind-set,
Collaborative Support, Structural Compatibility, Mutual Acceptance, Mutual Dependence,
Joint Image and Communication Effectiveness are the secondary factors for alignment of the
process of Network Planning.
118 R.P. Perié

Table 4-16: Network Planning Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM
AAS KLM
HIGH Objectives Fit Objectives Fit
Integrity Integrity
Communication Pro-activeness Communication Pro-activeness
Mind-set Mind-set
Collaborative Support Collaborative Support
MEDIUM Structural Compatibility Structural Compatibility
Attitude Attitude
Sharing Sharing
LOW Cooperation Experience Cooperation Experience
R.P. Perié 119

120 R.P. Perié

4.4 CASE III: INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

The goal of the infrastructure planning process is that its main objective is to support the
airport processes as effective and efficient as possible. The aim is to plan and develop the
infrastructure such that the airport processes are supported by minimal infrastructure as is
feasible. Infrastructure does not only require large investment but also cumulative
maintenance and depreciation costs, which are in effect charged to the airport’s customers, i.e.
in general the airlines.
4.4.1 KLM ANALYSIS

Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airport Affairs,
Corporate Management, Network Development and Passenger Services, which operate at the
strategic, tactical and operational level. Interview transcripts, 11 in total for the process of
Infrastructure Planning, have all undergone an analysis focused on extracting issues. This
extraction and subsequent linking to factors is performed in coordination by research at AAS.
Such coordination is deemed to be invaluable to ensure comparable results of the analyses of
the firms.
available in Appendix H, which has a restricted distribution due to the company confidential
R.P. Perié 121

Table 4-17: KLM Infrastructure Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix

Respondent nr.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2 Management Skills MS 1 1
3 Organisational Skills OS 1 1 1 1 4
4 Objectives Fit OF 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 7 2 1 22
5 Structural Compatibility SC 2 8 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 4 29
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF 2 8 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 4 29
11 Team Building TB 1 1 2
12 Attitude Att 2 1 2 1 1 3 10
13 Integrity Int 2 1 2 1 1 3 10
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 2 2 2 2 2 1 6 4 1 1 23
15 Mutual Dependence MD 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 19
16 Power Balance PB 2 2 2 2 2 1 6 4 1 1 23
17 Joint Image JI 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 19
18 Communication Intensity CI 0
19 Communication Systems CS 4 1 4 9
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 4 1 4 9
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 1 1
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 2 8 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 4 29
23 Cooperation Assessment CA 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 11
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 7 3 1 1 6 2 3 4 27
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R 6 3 1 6 2 3 3 24
26 Mind-set Mns 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 16
27 Collaborative Support CSp 2 8 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 4 29
28 Sharing Sh 2 1 2 1 1 3 10
29 Learning & Training L&T 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 11
30 Dedicated Resources DR 1 2 1 1 5
in order of magnitude Structural Compatibility, Corporate Culture Fit, Cooperation
Objectives, Collaborative Support, Coordination & Planning, Roles & Responsibilities,
Mutual Acceptance, Power Balance, and Objectives Fit. The scoring of a zero implies that
these factors, in the context of this dyadic business process, are not deemed to be of relative
importance in their relation to the other factors.
122 R.P. Perié


7
6
Avarage FactorDelta

26. Mind-set

4. Objectives Fit
12. Attitude
13. Integrity

28. Sharing
17. Joint Image

11. Team Building

6. Geographical Fit

16. Power Balance


Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-10: KLM Infrastructure Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in five similar factors (Table 4-18). These factors are Cooperation
Objectives, Coordination & Planning, Roles & Responsibilities and Power Balance. Since
the methods do not provide corresponding rankings of the Factors for Alignment, the next
step is to combine the two in order to obtain an unambiguous answer to the question, of
which factors have potential for alignment in this case.
R.P. Perié 123

Table 4-18: KLM Infrastructure Planning Ranked Results Compared

29 Structural Compatibility 1 Roles & Responsibilities 4,0
29 Corporate Culture Fit 2 Cooperation Assessment 3,8
29 Cooperation Objectives 3 Objectives Fit 3,7
29 Collaborative Support 4 Team Building 3,7
27 Coordination & Planning 5 Communication Effectiveness 3,6
24 Roles & Responsibilities 6 Communication Pro-activeness 3,6
23 Mutual Acceptance 7 Power Balance 3,5
23 Power Balance 8 Management Skills 3,5
22 Objectives Fit 9 Coordination & Planning 3,4
19 Mutual Dependence 10 Cooperation Objectives 3,4
19 Joint Image 11 Communication Intensity 2,9
16 Mind-set 12 Organisational Skills 2,9
11 Cooperation Assessment 13 Structural Compatibility 2,8
11 Learning & Training 14 Mind-set 2,8
10 Attitude 15 Dedicated Resources 2,8
10 Integrity 16 Collaborative Support 2,6
10 Sharing 17 Integrity 2,5
9 Communication Systems 18 Mutual Acceptance 2,5
9 Communication Effectiveness 19 Conflict Resolution 2,5
5 Dedicated Resources 20 Joint Image 2,2
4 Organisational Skills 21 Learning & Training 2,2
2 Team Building 22 Cooperation Experience 2,2
1 Management Skills 23 Corporate Culture Fit 2,2
1 Communication Pro-activeness 24 Sharing 2,2
0 Cooperation Experience 25 Geographical Fit 2,0
0 Geographical Fit 26 Attitude 1,9
0 National Culture Fit 27 Communication Systems 1,9
0 Professional Culture Fit 28 Mutual Dependence 1,9
0 Social Network Development 29 Professional Culture Fit 1,7
0 Communication Intensity 30 Social Network Development 1,6
0 Conflict Resolution 31 National Culture Fit 0,8
By plotting the factor occurrence on the X-axis and the factor delta on the Y-axis, Figure
4-11 illustrates the position of each of the factors in the DFA model according to the three
Figure 4-11: KLM Infrastructure Plannine Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
124 R.P. Perié

By multiplying the results of interview and questionnaire, as in Table 4-19 a single ranking
case, Cooperation Objectives, Roles & Responsibilities, Coordination & Planning, Power
Balance, Objectives Fit, Structural Compatibility, Collaborative Support, Corporate Culture
Fit and Mutual Acceptance are the top scoring factors.
Table 4-19: KLM Infrastructure Planning Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
HIGH Objectives Fit OF 3,7 2,2 8,1 0,83
Mind-set Mns 2,8 1,6 4,4 0,45
Joint Image JI 2,2 1,9 4,2 0,43
MEDIUM Communication Effectiveness CEff 3,6 0,9 3,3 0,33
Learning & Training L&T 2,2 1,1 2,5 0,25
Sharing Sh 2,2 1,0 2,2 0,22
Attitude Att 1,9 1,0 1,9 0,20
Organisational Skills OS 2,9 0,4 1,2 0,12
Team Building TB 3,7 0,2 0,7 0,08
Management Skills MS 3,5 0,1 0,3 0,04
LOW Communication Intensity CI 2,9 0 0 0
R.P. Perié 125


Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Security, Passenger
Logistics, Infrastructure, Design & Review, Airside Operations, Baggage, Airport
Development, Capacity Management and Account Management, which operate at the
strategic, tactical and operational level. Interview transcripts, 10 in total for the process of
Infrastructure Planning, have all undergone an analysis focused on extracting issues. This
extraction and subsequent linking to factors is performed in coordination by research at KLM.
Such coordination is deemed to be invaluable to ensure comparable results of the analyses of
the firms. A complete list of the issue collection per respondent as well as the associated
factors is available in Appendix H, which has a restricted distribution due to the company
confidential nature of its contents.
Table 4-20 provides an overview of the extracted factor occurrence data, as discussed in sub-
paragraph 2.4.2.
Table 4-20: AAS Infrastructure Planning Factor Occurrence Matrix

Respondent nr.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 Management Skills MS 1 1 1 1 6 10
3 Organisational Skills OS 3 1 3 2 9
4 Objectives Fit OF 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 13
5 Structural Compatibility SC 4 4 4 1 4 3 3 4 27
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF 1 6 4 4 1 4 3 3 3 29
11 Team Building TB 3 1 0 3 2 9
12 Attitude Att 2 1 1 2 3 2 11
13 Integrity Int 2 1 1 2 3 2 11
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 13
15 Mutual Dependence MD 1 1 0 2 2 6
16 Power Balance PB 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 12
17 Joint Image JI 1 1 3 2 7
19 Communication Systems CS 1 1 4 7 1 1 15
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 1 1 3 7 1 1 14
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 1 1 1 1 7 11
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 1 2 4 2 1 3 5 3 4 25
23 Cooperation Assessment CA 1 1 2
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 5 1 1 2 4 7 6 3 29
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R 2 1 1 1 3 7 3 3 21
26 Mind-set Mns 1 2 2 5
27 Collaborative Support CSp 1 2 4 2 1 3 5 3 4 25
28 Sharing Sh 2 1 1 2 3 2 11
29 Learning & Training L&T 1 1 1 3
30 Dedicated Resources DR 3 1 1 3 2 10
31 Conflict Resolution CR 1 1 1 5 8
126 R.P. Perié

in order of magnitude Corporate Culture Fit, Coordination & Planning, Structural
Compatibility, Cooperation Objectives, Collaborative Support, and Roles & Responsibilities.
The scoring of a zero implies that these factors in the context of this dyadic business process
are not deemed to be of relative importance in their relation to the other factors.

7
6
Avarage FactorDelta
1 25. Roles & Responsibilities

26. Mind-set


4. Objectives Fit
12. Attitude
13. Integrity
28. Sharing
17. Joint Image
11. Team Building

6. Geographical Fit


16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-12: AAS Infrastructure Planning Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in three similar factors (Table 4-21). These factors are Coordination
& Planning, Roles & Responsibilities and Mutual Acceptance. Since the methods do not
provide corresponding rankings of the Factors for Alignment, the next step is to combine the
two in order to obtain an unambiguous answer to the question, of which factors have
potential for alignment in this case.
R.P. Perié 127

Table 4-21: AAS Infrastructure Planning Ranked Results Compared

29 Corporate Culture Fit 1 Coordination & Planning 3,0
29 Coordination & Planning 2 Power Balance 3,0
27 Structural Compatibility 3 Cooperation Assessment 2,8
25 Cooperation Objectives 4 Team Building 2,7
25 Collaborative Support 5 Communication Pro-activeness 2,7
21 Roles & Responsibilities 6 Management Skills 2,6
15 Communication Systems 7 Conflict Resolution 2,5
14 Communication Effectiveness 8 Integrity 2,5
13 Objectives Fit 9 Roles & Responsibilities 2,4
13 Mutual Acceptance 10 Mutual Acceptance 2,3
12 Power Balance 11 Corporate Culture Fit 2,2
11 Attitude 12 Objectives Fit 2,2
11 Integrity 13 Organisational Skills 2,1
11 Communication Pro-activeness 14 Communication Effectiveness 2,1
11 Sharing 15 Geographical Fit 1,9
10 Management Skills 16 Learning & Training 1,9
10 Dedicated Resources 17 Mind-set 1,9
9 Organisational Skills 18 Joint Image 1,9
9 Team Building 19 Dedicated Resources 1,8
8 Conflict Resolution 20 Cooperation Experience 1,8
7 Joint Image 21 National Culture Fit 1,8
6 Mutual Dependence 22 Cooperation Objectives 1,8
5 Mind-set 23 Attitude 1,8
3 Learning & Training 24 Sharing 1,7
2 Cooperation Assessment 25 Collaborative Support 1,6
0 Geographical Fit 26 Communication Systems 1,6
0 Cooperation Experience 27 Communication Intensity 1,6
0 National Culture Fit 28 Structural Compatibility 1,4
0 Communication Intensity 29 Social Network Development 1,4
0 Social Network Development 30 Mutual Dependence 1,1
0 Professional Culture Fit 31 Professional Culture Fit 1,0
Figure 4-13: AAS Infrastructure Planning Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
128 R.P. Perié

By multiplying the results of interview and questionnaire, also available in Table 4-22, a
single ranking appears. This ranking is used to identify which factors have potential for
alignment. In this case, Coordination & Planning Corporate Culture Fit, Roles
&Responsibility and Cooperation Objectives are the top scoring factors.
Table 4-22: AAS Infrastructure Planning Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
HIGH Roles & Responsibilities R&R 2,4 2,1 5,0 0,57
MEDIUM Management Skills 2,6 1,0 2,6 0,30
MS
Team Building TB 2,7 0,9 2,4 0,28
Attitude Att 1,8 1,1 1,9 0,22
Organisational Skills OS 2,1 0,9 1,9 0,22
Sharing Sh 1,7 1,1 1,9 0,21
Joint Image JI 1,9 0,7 1,3 0,15
Mind-set Mns 1,9 0,5 1,0 0,11
LOW Geographical Fit GF 1,9 0 0 0
Communication Intensity CI 1,6 0 0 0
4.4.3 CONCLUSION INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING DYAD KLM - AAS

individually. It can be seen that KLM and AAS both perceive each of the factors Corporate
Culture Fit, Cooperation Objectives, Roles & Responsibilities and Coordination & Planning
to be a factor for alignment. KLM respondents value the majority of factors as HIGH –
MEDIUM, whereas AAS is characterized by a dominant value of MEDIUM – LOW. Due to
the respondents’ appreciation in the interview transcripts, see restricted appendices, more
critical comments are provided by KLM. Due to a score of 0 in the Table Process Ranked
Factors above, the designation of the firm in the Table Factor Potential for Alignment below
is printed in light grey and italics in the column LOW.
R.P. Perié 129

Table 4-23: Infrastructure Planning Factor Potential for Alignment

Factor Name abbr.
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
Management Skills MS AAS KLM
Organisational Skills OS AAS KLM
Objectives Fit OF KLM AAS
Team Building TB AAS KLM
Attitude Att KLM-AAS
Integrity Int KLM-AAS
Mutual Acceptance MA KLM AAS
Mutual Dependence MD KLM AAS
Power Balance PB KLM AAS
Joint Image JI KLM AAS
Communication Systems CS AAS KLM
Communication Pro-activeness CP AAS KLM
Cooperation Objectives CO KLM-AAS
Cooperation Assessment CA KLM AAS
Mind-set Mns KLM AAS
Collaborative Support CSp KLM AAS
Sharing Sh KLM-AAS
Learning & Training L&T KLM AAS
Dedicated Resources DR AAS KLM
Conflict Resolution CR AAS KLM
Table 4-24 illustrates the factors for the case Infrastructure Planning, As conclusion and
answer to the research question, Corporate Culture Fit, Coordination & Planning,
Cooperation Objectives, Objectives Fit, Structural Compatibility, Mutual Acceptance, Power
Balance, Roles & Responsibilities and Collaborative Support, are the primary factors for
alignment of the process of Infrastructure Planning.
The factors Attitude, Integrity, Communication Effectiveness, Sharing, Organizational Skills,
Joint Image, Communication Systems, Dedicated Resources, Management Skills, Team
Building, Mutual Dependence, Communication Pro-activeness, Cooperation Assessment,
Mind-set, Learning & Training and Conflict Resolution are the secondary factors for
alignment of the process of Infrastructure Planning.
130 R.P. Perié

Table 4-24: Infrastructure Planning Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM
AAS KLM
HIGH Objectives Fit Objectives Fit
Structural Compatibility Structural Compatibility
Attitude Attitude
Integrity Integrity
Sharing Sharing
MEDIUM
Mind-set Mind-set
LOW Professional Culture Fit Professional Culture Fit
R.P. Perié 131

132 R.P. Perié

4.5 CASE IV: AIRCRAFT STAND ALLOCATION

The processes of infrastructure planning and aircraft stand allocation are strongly connected
due to the fact that availability of infrastructure directly influences the flexibility at the
airport to position aircraft (see Figure 1-5). As such the infrastructure planning process and
the aircraft stand allocation process are consecutive steps in the value chain of both airline
and airport. Both its operational and long-term considerations are of strategic nature.
4.5.1 KLM ANALYSIS

Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airport Affairs,
Capacity Management, Network Development, Passenger Services and Hub Control Centre,
which operate at the strategic, tactical and operational level. Interview transcripts, 10 in total
for the process of Aircraft Stand Allocation, have all undergone an analysis focused on
coordination by the researchers at KLM and AAS. Such coordination is deemed to be
invaluable to ensure comparable results of the analyses of the firms.
R.P. Perié 133

Table 4-25: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Factors Occurrence Matrix

Respondent nr.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 Objectives Fit OF 8 2 5 10 6 2 1 1 8 10 53
5 Structural Compatibility SC 0
12 Attitude Att 1 3 1 2 7
13 Integrity Int 3 1 2 6
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 8 2 4 9 6 2 1 1 8 10 51
15 Mutual Dependence MD 0
16 Power Balance PB 8 2 4 9 6 2 1 1 8 10 51
17 Joint Image JI 0
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 0
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 0
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 0
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 0
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R 0
26 Mind-set Mns 0
28 Sharing Sh 2 3 1 2 8
134 R.P. Perié

in order of magnitude Objectives Fit, Mutual Acceptance and Power Balance. The scoring of
a zero implies that these factors in the context of this dyadic business process are not deemed
to be of relative importance in their relation to the other factors.
6
Avarage FactorDelta
1
26. Mind-set

12. Attitude
4. Objectives Fit
13. Integrity

28. Sharing
17. Joint Image

11. Team Building

6. Geographical Fit


16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-14: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in three similar factors (Table 4-26). These factors are Objectives
Fit, Power Balance and Cooperation Assessment. Since the methods do not provide
corresponding rankings of the Factors for Alignment, the next step is to combine the two in
order to obtain an unambiguous answer to the question, of which factors have potential for
alignment in this case.
R.P. Perié 135

Table 4-26: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Ranked Results Compared

Occurrence Score Factor Name Rank Factor Name Factor Delta
53 Objectives Fit 1 Cooperation Assessment 2,9
51 Mutual Acceptance 2 Power Balance 2,8
51 Power Balance 3 Cooperation Objectives 2,7
8 Sharing 4 Communication Pro-activeness 2,5
7 Attitude 5 Conflict Resolution 2,5
6 Integrity 6 Objectives Fit 2,4
4 Cooperation Assessment 7 Coordination & Planning 2,4
4 Learning & Training 8 Mind-set 2,4
0 Cooperation Experience 9 Dedicated Resources 2,4
0 Management Skills 10 Joint Image 2,3
0 Organisational Skills 11 Communication Effectiveness 2,3
0 Structural Compatibility 12 Roles & Responsibilities 2,3
0 Geographical Fit 13 Collaborative Support 2,3
0 National Culture Fit 14 Mutual Dependence 2,1
0 Corporate Culture Fit 15 Management Skills 2,1
0 Professional Culture Fit 16 Structural Compatibility 2,1
0 Social Network Development 17 National Culture Fit 2,1
0 Team Building 18 Corporate Culture Fit 2,1
0 Mutual Dependence 19 Sharing 2,1
0 Joint Image 20 Learning & Training 2,1
0 Communication Intensity 21 Professional Culture Fit 2,0
0 Communication Systems 22 Communication Intensity 2,0
0 Communication Effectiveness 23 Social Network Development 1,9
0 Communication Pro-activeness 24 Team Building 1,9
0 Cooperation Objectives 25 Attitude 1,8
0 Coordination & Planning 26 Integrity 1,8
0 Roles & Responsibilities 27 Mutual Acceptance 1,8
0 Mind-set 28 Communication Systems 1,8
0 Collaborative Support 29 Geographical Fit 1,6
0 Dedicated Resources 30 Organisational Skills 1,5
0 Conflict Resolution 31 Cooperation Experience 1,2
Figure 4-15: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
136 R.P. Perié

case, Power Balance, Objectives Fit and Mutual Acceptance are the top scoring factors.
Table 4-27: KLM Aircraft Stand Allocation Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
HIGH Objectives Fit OF 2,4 5,3 12,6 0,90
Sharing Sh 2,1 0,8 1,7 0,12
Attitude Att 1,8 0,7 1,2 0,09
Cooperation Objectives CO 2,7 0 0 0
Communication Pro-activeness CP 2,5 0 0 0
Coordination & Planning C&P 2,4 0 0 0
Mind-set Mns 2,4 0 0 0
Joint Image JI 2,3 0 0 0
Communication Effectiveness CEff 2,3 0 0 0
Roles & Responsibilities R&R 2,3 0 0 0
LOW Collaborative Support 2,3 0 0 0
CSp
Mutual Dependence MD 2,1 0 0 0
Structural Compatibility SC 2,1 0 0 0

Interview Results
The researcher has interviewed respondents from the departments of Airside Operations and
Capacity Management, which operate at the tactical and operational level. Interview
transcripts, 6 in total for the process of Aircraft Stand Allocation, have all undergone an
analysis focused on extracting issues. This extraction and subsequent linking to factors is
performed in coordination by the researchers at KLM and AAS. Such coordination is deemed
to be invaluable to ensure comparable results of the analyses of the firms.
R.P. Perié 137

Table 4-28: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Occurrence Matrix
Respondent nr.
11 12 13 14 15 16
4 Objectives Fit OF 5 7 2 9 6 1 30
5 Structural Compatibility SC 0
12 Attitude Att 3 4 3 1 6 17
13 Integrity Int 3 4 3 1 6 17
14 Mutual Acceptance MA 4 7 2 10 5 1 29
15 Mutual Dependence MD 0
16 Power Balance PB 4 7 2 9 3 1 26
17 Joint Image JI 0
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff 0
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP 0
22 Cooperation Objectives CO 0
24 Coordination & Planning C&P 0
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R 0
26 Mind-set Mns 0
28 Sharing Sh 2 4 3 3 6 18
in order of magnitude Objectives Fit, Mutual Acceptance, Power Balance, Sharing, Integrity
and Attitude. The scoring of a zero implies that these factors in the context of this dyadic
business process are not deemed to be of relative importance in their relation to the other
factors.
138 R.P. Perié


7
6
Avarage FactorDelta

26. Mind-set


4. Objectives Fit
12. Attitude
13. Integrity

28. Sharing
17. Joint Image

11. Team Building


6. Geographical Fit


16. Power Balance

Factor nr. Name
Figure 4-16: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Average Questionnaire Factor Scores and Delta

both methods only result in five similar factors (Table 4-29). These factors are Objectives Fit,
Power Balance, Cooperation Assessment, Dedicated Resources and Coordination &
Planning. Since the methods do not provide corresponding rankings of the Factors for
Alignment, the next step is to combine the two in order to obtain an unambiguous answer to
the question, of which factors have potential for alignment in this case.
R.P. Perié 139

Table 4-29: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Ranked Results Compared

Occurrence Score Factor Name Rank Factor Name Factor Delta
30 Objectives Fit 1 Cooperation Assessment 3,1
29 Mutual Acceptance 2 Dedicated Resources 3,0
26 Power Balance 3 Coordination & Planning 2,9
19 Sharing 4 Objectives Fit 2,9
17 Attitude 5 Corporate Culture Fit 2,8
17 Integrity 6 Communication Effectiveness 2,8
4 Cooperation Assessment 7 Communication Pro-activeness 2,8
4 Learning & Training 8 Roles & Responsibilities 2,8
0 Dedicated Resources 9 Management Skills 2,5
0 Coordination & Planning 10 Power Balance 2,5
0 Corporate Culture Fit 11 Mutual Acceptance 2,4
0 Communication Effectiveness 12 Communication Intensity 2,4
0 Communication Pro-activeness 13 Mind-set 2,4
0 Roles & Responsibilities 14 Team Building 2,3
0 Management Skills 15 Organisational Skills 2,3
0 Communication Intensity 16 Integrity 2,3
0 Mind-set 17 Communication Systems 2,3
0 Team Building 18 Conflict Resolution 2,3
0 Organisational Skills 19 Structural Compatibility 2,1
0 Communication Systems 20 Professional Culture Fit 2,1
0 Conflict Resolution 21 Collaborative Support 2,1
0 Structural Compatibility 22 Learning & Training 2,1
0 Professional Culture Fit 23 Geographical Fit 2,0
0 Collaborative Support 24 Cooperation Objectives 2,0
0 Geographical Fit 25 Sharing 2,0
0 Cooperation Objectives 26 National Culture Fit 1,8
0 National Culture Fit 27 Cooperation Experience 1,8
0 Cooperation Experience 28 Joint Image 1,6
0 Joint Image 29 Social Network Development 1,6
0 Social Network Development 30 Mutual Dependence 1,6
0 Mutual Dependence 31 Attitude 1,1
Figure 4-17: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Delta vs Occurrence Plot
140 R.P. Perié

By multiplying the results of interview and questionnaire, also available in Table 4-30, a
single ranking appears. This ranking is used to identify which factors have potential for
alignment. In this case, Objectives Fit, Mutual Acceptance and Power Balance are the top
scoring factors.
Table 4-30: AAS Aircraft Stand Allocation Process Ranked Factors
Potential
for Alignment
Objectives Fit OF 2,9 5,0 14,3 1
HIGH Mutual Acceptance MA 2,4 4,8 11,5 0,80
MEDIUM Sharing Sh 2,0 3,0 6,0 0,42
Attitude Att 1,1 2,8 3,2 0,22
Coordination & Planning C&P 2,9 0 0 0
Communication Effectiveness CEff 2,8 0 0 0
Communication Pro-activeness CP 2,8 0 0 0
Roles & Responsibilities R&R 2,8 0 0 0
Mind-set Mns 2,4 0 0 0
LOW Organisational Skills OS 2,3 0 0 0
Structural Compatibility SC 2,1 0 0 0
Collaborative Support CSp 2,1 0 0 0
Cooperation Objectives CO 2,0 0 0 0
Joint Image JI 1,6 0 0 0
Mutual Dependence MD 1,6 0 0 0
4.5.3 CONCLUSION AIRCRAFT STAND ALLOCATION DYAD KLM-AAS
individually. It can be seen that KLM and AAS both perceive each of the factors Objectives
Fit, Mutual Acceptance and Power Balance to be a factor for alignment. AAS respondents
value the majority of factors as MEDIUM, whereas KLM is characterized by a dominant
value of LOW. Due to the respondents’ appreciation in the interview transcripts, see
restricted appendices, more critical comments are provided by AAS. Due to a score of 0 in
the Table Process Ranked Factors above, the designation of the firm in the Table Factor
Potential for Alignment below is printed in light grey and italics in the column LOW.
R.P. Perié 141

Table 4-31: Aircraft Stand Allocation Factor Potential for Alignment

Factor Name abbr.
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
Objectives Fit OF KLM-AAS
Structural Compatibility SC KLM-AAS
Attitude Att AAS KLM
Integrity Int AAS KLM
Mutual Acceptance MA KLM-AAS
Mutual Dependence MD KLM-AAS
Joint Image JI KLM-AAS
Communication Pro-activeness CP KLM-AAS
Cooperation Objectives CO KLM-AAS
Mind-set Mns KLM-AAS
Sharing Sh AAS KLM
Table 4-32 illustrates the factors for the case Aircraft Stand Allocation. As conclusion and
answer to the research question, Objectives Fit, Mutual Acceptance and Power Balance, are
the primary factors for alignment of the process Aircraft Stand Allocation.
The factors Integrity, Sharing and Attitude are the secondary factors for alignment of the
process of Aircraft Stand Allocation.
142 R.P. Perié

Table 4-32: Aircraft Stand Allocation Priority of Factors for Alignment for AAS and KLM
AAS KLM
Objectives Fit Objectives Fit
HIGH Mutual Acceptance Mutual Acceptance
Integrity Integrity
MEDIUM Sharing Sharing
Attitude Attitude
Structural Compatibility Structural Compatibility
LOW Mutual Dependence Mutual Dependence
Mind-set Mind-set
R.P. Perié 143

144 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE CONCLUSIONS
5 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the conclusions of the research question and the contributions to
research. A summary of the conclusions of the research question is provided in the following
section. The third section provides an overview of the main research contributions.
5.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND RESEARCH SET-UP

The aim of this dissertation is to determine the Factors for Alignment of specific inter-
dependent business processes at KLM and AAS. These dyadic processes are Environmental
Capacity, Network Planning, Infrastructure Planning and Aircraft Stand Allocation. These
processes are described in paragraph 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and at Appendix A. The research
question is:
This research is based upon the assumption that alignment of the dyadic business processes
of KLM and AAS is achieved by addressing the issues affecting alignment regarding various
subjects within each business process, as indicated by employees of these firms. Each issue is
linked to one or more Factors for Alignment. All issues within these dyadic business
processes of KLM and AAS have been conceptualized. The factors with the greatest
influence upon the dyadic relation of these firms are the perceived issues that have low
scores in the questionnaire and are mentioned during the interview sessions (sub-paragraph
2.5.2).
Attributes which are filtered from scientific articles during this literature research are linked
to constructs which are subsequently divided into factors (paragraph 3.2). The definitions of
the factors and constructs are found in Table 3-13. The filtered attributes, categorized per
factor and construct and related to the scientific articles, are found in sub-paragraph 3.5.1.
The theoretical Delft Factors for Alignment (DFA) model is developed in Chapter 3, based
upon literature research obtained from scientific articles from which thirty-one factors are
defined. This model is composed of mutually exclusive Factors for Alignment for dyadic
business processes between firms.
In order to research the applicability of the developed DFA model, research is carried out
within four dyadic business processes of firms at three levels of decision making, described
in sub-paragraph 2.4.1. In view of the very low number of respondents, research did not
differentiate between respondents at different levels of decision making. Further research of
the restricted interview transcripts could provide useful information regarding the views of
respondents at different levels of decision making. KLM and AAS are the two firms for the
case studies in Chapter 4. It is noted that findings within the KLM-AAS alignment are to be
R.P. Perié 145

CONCLUSIONS ALL FOR ONE
considered as constructive criticism. As in any situation, areas for potential alignment can
always be defined.
By their definition, all factors of the DFA model are of equal importance to alignment. After
linking the issues to one or more Factors for Alignment, these factors of the four dyadic
processes are ranked to determine their potential for alignment to provide benefit to the
dyadic relation between KLM and AAS.
It is noted that not only the firm’s point of view is relevant within the relation to achieve
alignment but also that of the dyadic partner. Adaptations within both partners can be
required due to perceived issues of one or both partners.
By combining the occurrence scores of issues with the average scores of the factor Delta a
graphic plot is created of each Factor for Alignment. In the spatial separation of the plotted
positioning of the factors, research has arbitrarily divided the plot into three areas designated
as HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW importance or urgency in the context of perceived potential
for alignment of these factors. Factors in de HIGH segment of the ranking are designated as
of more importance than those in the MEDIUM or LOW segments. It is, however, feasible to
enlarge the number of factors for alignment by including the factors within the MEDIUM
segment. A larger group of factors therefore requires management to determine appropriate
actions for the Factors for Alignment.
The DFA model, as an analysis tool, helps to create a structural ordering of issues from
interviews and questionnaires in Chapter 4. This analysis tool has proven to be effective in
mapping the differences and similarities as well as the perceived potential of Factors for
Alignment for dyadic business processes of the related firms, i.e. KLM as well as and AAS
individually.
The application of this model to dyadic business processes of KLM and AAS jointly proves
that all issues present within their relation can be conceptualized by this model.
This research has shown that the DFA model is a diagnostic tool in the analysis of alignment
of dyadic business processes of these firms. Providing specific attention by management to
these identified Factors for Alignment in the near future can be of significance to the dyadic
firms.
Table 4-8, Table 4-16, Table 4-24 and Table 4-32, provide the following factors from the
HIGH segments for potential alignment for the dyadic combination of KLM and AAS. The
research question, as formulated also at the beginning of this paragraph, is answered by
the indicated primary Factors for Alignment listed per business process below. This also
implies that the DFA model is effective for analysis of dyadic business processes:
• Environmental Capacity - Communication Intensity, Coordination & Planning,

Communication Pro-activeness, Cooperation Objectives and Roles & Responsibilities;
• Network Planning - Communication Intensity, Coordination & Planning, Objectives
Fit, Integrity and Cooperation Objectives;
146 R.P. Perié

• Infrastructure Planning - Corporate Culture Fit, Coordination & Planning,

Objectives Fit, Structural Compatibility, Mutual Acceptance, Power Balance,
Cooperation Objectives, Roles & Responsibilities and Collaborative Support;
• Aircraft Stand Allocation - Objectives Fit, Mutual Acceptance and Power Balance.
The answer to the research question, including the primary and secondary Factors for
Alignment, is illustrated by Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Primary and secondary Factors for Alignment per business process
Business Process
Environmental Network Infrastructure Aircraft
Capacity Planning Planning Allocation
nr. Factor Name Abbr.
1 Cooperation Experience CE
2 Management Skills MS s
3 Organizational Skills OS s
4 Objectives Fit OF s p p p
5 Structural Compatibility SC s s p
6 Geographical Fit GF
7 National Culture Fit NCF
8 Corporate Culture Fit CCF s p
9 Professional Culture Fit PCF
10 Social Network Development SND
11 Team Building TB s
12 Attitude Att s s
13 Integrity Int s p s s
14 Mutual Acceptance MA s s p p
15 Mutual Dependence MD s s s
16 Power Balance PB p p
17 Joint Image JI s s
18 Communication Intensity CI p p
19 Communication Systems CS s
20 Communication Effectiveness CEff s s s
21 Communication Pro-activeness CP p s s
22 Cooperation Objectives CO p p p
23 Cooperation Assessment CA s
24 Coordination & Planning C&P p p p
25 Roles & Responsibilities R&R p s p
26 Mind-set Mns s s
27 Collaborative Support CSp s p
28 Sharing Sh s s
29 Learning & Training L&T s
30 Dedicated Resources DR s
31 Conflict Resolution CR s
R.P. Perié 147

It is noted in this table that the factors Objectives Fit, Cooperation Objectives and
Coordination & Planning have been listed three times in the HIGH segment of the analysis
of these four dyadic business processes. The exact definitions of these three factors are listed
in Table 3-13.
5.3 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

Scientific Contribution
This research has obtained confirmation of the awareness at KLM and AAS of their inter-
dependency as an additional observation. Both firms recognize that many opportunities to
benefit from their inter-dependence exist. The initial perception before this research that such
opportunities were not exploited in a sufficient manner is an understatement.
Albeit that KLM and AAS engage in various forms of non-formalized irregular co-operation,
a general lack of integral knowledge of the partner’s organization precludes any structured
alignment. This has encouraged appropriate research to benefit not only this segment of
industry but also to gain knowledge as such research has neither been carried out in this
country nor in a similar manner elsewhere, indicating a research gap.
The analysis in this research has defined the feasibility of an alignment of specific dyadic
business processes at KLM and AAS to improve their long-term competitiveness, thereby
enhancing their overall performance.
It appears that no previous research has addressed the complex relation between airlines and
airports, nor alignment of their inter-dependent business processes. This implies that viable
academic theory or empirical evidence regarding this complex relation is non-existent. The
phenomenon of this relation is of importance to both the main-carrier airline, i.e. KLM, and
its hub-airport, i.e. AAS. This research contributes to filling the void of plausible research by
theory-building.
The Delft Factors for Alignment model is created and provides a novel contribution to
scientific research. It addresses inter-organizational alignment at the level of business
processes and defines Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic business processes.
Managerial Contribution
Major strategic benefits are reaped by “working together” in primary activities that are
distinctive for the industry under consideration. The focus of this research is, therefore, upon
inter-dependent activities of KLM and AAS.
Theory and practice debate centers on questions regarding models and potential benefits of
alignment between airlines and airports at the level of specific business processes.
This dissertation has contributed to discussions concerning the creation of alignment in actual
practice of the national main-carrier airline and hub-airport, i.e. KLM and AAS. This
research has also contributed to ensuring that discussions between KLM and AAS
concerning objectives, alternatives, complications etc., become transparent. The arguments at
KLM and AAS in favor of a chosen approach were often fragmented. A contribution of this
research is proposing Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic business processes at KLM
and AAS.
148 R.P. Perié

Rather than bemoan the fact of dependency, KLM and AAS can seek to set that dependency
in the context of their overall relationship strategy as their competitiveness is dependent upon
the manner of their alignment. There is no “right set” of relationships, as market conditions,
cost pressures and business strategies all act to influence relations with partners and suppliers.
A small group of employees at KLM and AAS has obtained a better understanding of the
Factors for Alignment of their dyadic business processes. They have become aware that this
alignment will reduce the integral cost of hub airport operations, increase joint revenues and
improve their mutual image in order to not only gain but also maintain their competitive
advantage.
The constant renewal of products, processes, markets and organization enables firms to stay
ahead of competition. To date no European hub has succeeded in achieving a balance
between an airport and airline which is simultaneously stable, growth-oriented and with
optimized business processes enabling both sides to go forward on that basis on a stronger
footing. With the recent knowledge at KLM and AAS, they can realize the prospect of
competitive advantage by their aligned dyadic relationships. Small parts of these firms have
obtained a better understanding of what determines a successful relationship.
KLM and AAS need to focus upon making their processes more flexible and upon optimal
use of their resources. The concept of an aligned system partnership needs to be given new,
practically focused content.
This research has provided a contribution to the national aviation industry. Although the
relationships should be of a non-discriminatory nature due to other users at AAS, an
improved alignment of KLM and AAS also benefits all other users.
This research has explored the relationship between KLM and AAS from a strategic
management perspective. It has emphasized the potential benefits of aligned dyadic
relationships between the specific dyadic business processes of KLM and AAS.
As stated at the end of sub-paragraph 1.3.10, Research Field and reported in the majority of
interviews, managerial attitude at KLM and AAS is one of the major barriers to successfully
making the transition to and sustaining aligned relations. The fear of open exchange of
information in the context of a command and control model and/or the reluctance to
relinquish authority to a value chain partner causes the value chain members to miss that
opportunity to create closer or aligned ties. Managers at KLM and AAS should recognize and
understand the factors that facilitate the transition to more aligned value chains. Regular
sharing of strategic information and other pertinent questions is essential in the context of
alignment leading to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.
This research has also contributed to the realization of the goals of the Main Port, i.e.
improvement of capacity and accessibility “airside”. The focus of this contribution is on three
of eight main research themes of the Platform of SIM, i.e.:
• Optimization of the value chain, including the dyadic business processes
infrastructure planning and aircraft stand allocation;
• The Netherlands Government’s interest in the dyadic business processes
environmental capacity and network planning; including;
R.P. Perié 149

With respect to these research themes, this research indicates that the expectation of the
Platform of SIM, including highest management level of KLM and AAS, is likely to be
realistic in that “specific business processes of KLM and AAS can be aligned”.
Societal Contribution
Understanding and therefore being able to promote better management of the Factors for
Alignment, contributes to the dyadic alignment of specific inter-dependent business
processes of KLM and AAS. This, in turn, results in more effective and efficient operation of
these processes which leads to becoming known as a “best practice airport”. This also
contributes to the creation and maintenance of their competitive advantage. That will not
only be to the benefit of KLM and AAS, but also for the benefit of its customers, i.e.
passengers and cargo agents.
150 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE RECOMMENDATIONS
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
“Our goal should be....to create a system responsive to the imperative of efficiency and the
desirability of decent service.”
Robert L. Crandall,
Retired Chairman and CEO of American Airlines, June 10, 2008
6.1 FURTHER APPLICATION

The results of this research are to be considered as a first attempt to identify Factors for
Alignment of dyadic business processes. This research is focused on the Factors for
Alignment and did not include in the analysis the positive aspects of the co-operation
mentioned in the interview transcripts. However, the positive aspects and examples of
successes in alignment between KLM and AAS should be used as lessons at the interaction
points where potential for alignment is identified; i.e. follow the good example.
In sub-paragraph 1.3.10, Mitigation of Complexity for KLM and AAS four proposals are
provided for remedial action in earlier research by Spekman and Carraway (2006). These are:
• facilitate multi-function, multi-level interaction;
• proactively explore opportunities to leverage skills to bring value to customers;
• achieve integration or alignment within firms and across firm boundaries to
maximize the probability to market acceptance of goods and services;
• think longer term, looking for win-win solutions for buyer, seller and customer.
This research has provided ample supporting analysis for implementation of the above
mentioned four proposals including the model by Spekman and Carraway (2006) described
in sub-paragraph 1.3.10 and shown in Figure 1-14.
Implementation of feasible alignment of specific Factors for Alignment as shown in Table

4-8, Table 4-16, Table 4-24 and Table 4-32 as well as Table 5-1 is recommended. Repetition
of this research after two or three years of implementation, as a longitudinal study, could be
of interest to KLM and AAS.
The research methodology has proven to be viable. This would encourage application for
research of other dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS, which could strengthen their
competitive advantage.
6.2 FURTHER RESEARCH

Research Focus
In sub-paragraph 1.2.1, illustrated by Figure 1-1, it is stated that this research is focused upon
KLM and AAS, whereas ANS is also an essential component of national civil aviation. To
add to the results of this research, it is recommended to research two specific dyadic business
R.P. Perié 151

RECOMMENDATIONS ALL FOR ONE
processes of KLM and ANS as well as two specific dyadic business processes of AAS and
ANS.
The context of the relationship of a major carrier airline, e.g. KLM, and a hub airport, e.g.
AAS, can also be considered to be of either a complementary nature or an involuntary nature.
This can constrain or limit their respective operational modes. A brief description of this
aspect is found in paragraph 7.3 and is also recommended for further research.
Regarding the theoretical model it is remarked that it could be applied to analyze any other
intra or inter-organizational dyadic relationship, including other combinations of main-carrier
airlines and hub airports. The verification of the theoretical model proved that using the
defined factors this leads to a consistent structuring of issues.
Therefore, the DFA model and the developed analysis procedure are indeed generalizable to
other settings, e.g.:
• Rotterdam Port Authority, Euro Port Container Terminal and the MAERSK/P&O
shipping line.
• Operational and related logistic support in the widest sense of governmental
organizations and industry.
Planning Processes
In the short term a great deal of activity takes place by deliberations in various contexts but
not according to a pre-determined planning process and also not to pre-set standards of
quality. There seems to be no link or feedback loop between strategy and operations at KLM.
The planning processes do not reflect a customer centric approach. It seems that KLM
demands are not aligned to the capacity planning as presented by AAS and vice-versa.
It is recommended to establish guidelines for planning processes and to ensure adherence
thereof by evaluation of these planning processes at the end of each planning cycle.
Literature Research
Based upon the research question this dissertation has indicated which factors have potential
for alignment of specific dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS. A next step could be
to determine how to deal with these specific Factors for Alignment. It is recommended to
perform additional literature research which analyzes general alignment in scientific articles
addressing examples of factors in the context of other industries. Proposals for
implementation of Factors for Alignment must create support which is only possible if they
are the result of well-founded deduction and demonstrate their usefulness by pointing out
exactly which issues or problems are resolved, i.e. communicating the direct benefits.
The challenge lies in retaining the basic principles taken from this additional literature, yet
specifying them to be suitable for application in future for dyadic processes at KLM and
AAS. These examples could be crafted into guidelines for the unique relationship of KLM
and AAS. Implementation of these guidelines in additional research at KLM and AAS may
substantiate these results.
Research Methodology
To promote consistency in future use of this research methodology, it is recommended to
consider refining some specific aspects. This refinement may result in a different selection of
152 R.P. Perié

research methodology. Next to the obvious comment that more data could have been
collected by interviewing more knowledgeable respondents, there are some elements in the
research methodology that, in hindsight, could be carried out differently. The questionnaire
design, the interview setup, the DFA model and the scope of research are considered:
• To avoid influencing of the respondents, the use of terminology describing the actual
factors in each question of the questionnaire was not used. However, some
inconsistency in the line of questioning may have occurred as a result. There is a
danger that respondents have interpreted a question differently than intended.
Evaluation of each question is recommended;
• Respondents might complete the questionnaire more attentively if the individual
questions were mixed up. Additional questions can be added to verify the answers as
well;
• The chosen method of interviewing might not have uncovered every aspect. A
different method could be to select a more limited area of the process, or to allow
respondents to react to each other’s statements. However this would be counter to the
chosen method of letting the respondents freely discuss what is on their mind, to
determine as many different issues as possible;
• There is a slight chance that the results of the interviews are misinterpreted by the
researcher. Any such effects have been considered by utilizing the predefined DFA
model and combining results of multiple interviews to form a point of view. Although
the respondents are not familiar with the DFA model, the researcher could try to find
confirmation of the linked factors with the respondents. However this would leave the
research vulnerable to undesired influence by its data source;
• During the analysis phase, it was determined that researchers may have different
interpretations of the Factors for Alignment. The effects thereof have been limited by
having the analysis at AAS and KLM carefully performed during the linkage of
factor(s) to issues, issue clustering and the formulation and subsequent comparison of
the cooperating firms’ points of view. However, it seems necessary to refine the
definitions of the factors to further reduce the possibilities of different interpretations;
• In future specific cases, it is recommended to restrict the research to one inter-
dependent business process and within just one hierarchical level of decision making
as the effort of this research was, in retrospect, spread over a large area of interest. In
such research more specific and stronger results can be obtained from analysis. In
order to obtain more and better insight in the urgency of issues within each
hierarchical level, it should be attempted to interview more knowledgeable
respondents to also allow for proper statistical analysis;
• Identification of relations between factors is recommended for analysis, i.e.
collections of factors or factor families as a result of clustering of issues.
Incorporation of the occurrence of problem area elements is also recommended in
further research to also rank these elements;
• The dyadic business process Network Planning is a derivative of the dyadic business
process Environmental Capacity. The respondents concerned with the latter process
are more used to dealing with contrasting aspects as well objectives of various firms
in their alignment. The perception of the respondents of the former process regarding
the behavior of independent firms fighting for their interests was deemed as less
R.P. Perié 153

sympathetic, due to their inexperience. This became apparent in their scoring of

Focus Group Discussions

In the context of established poor performing Factors for Alignment, it can be perceived that
improvements of these factors are to be considered as a challenge. A Focus Group
Discussion (FGD), i.e. a “brainstorming session” of KLM and AAS problem/process owners,
can in the future be applied as an additional research method with a four-fold objective.
• to submit the joint challenges formulated as extracted from mirrored perspective
tables of KLM and AAS as a method to reflect upon the analysis outcome;
• to extract the respondent’s selection score on subjects of interest to discuss;
• to obtain options for the selected challenges by option generation and discussion
sessions;
• to approach the challenges by both firms together that result from reflection upon the
content of each other’s problem area elements; this encourages “thinking out of the
box”.
The focus group discussion acts as a showcase for both firms on how to approach the
challenges that result from reflecting on the content of each other’s problem area elements. A
number of suggestions is provided for the execution of a FGD:
• Optimal number of focus group participants is six to ten, being participative and
reflective persons;
• FGD could be organized within a hierarchical level;
• FGD could be organized more often to address issues that occur;
• The appropriate capabilities of the facilitator for an FGD is important;
• The techniques to be used during a FGD are to be determined before the session;
• Invite participants who have a similar nature;
• Prepare the participants with a focus group preparation document;
• The session should last 1 to 1.5 hours;
• Limit the selection of challenges to be discussed to a maximum of five;
• Challenges should be formulated in Dutch to facilitate recognizability, in the context
of KLM and AAS;
• Joint selection criteria by the participants of the FGD for generated options could de
beneficial;
• Reiterate that this session is not a debate with a “winner”; no one expects to reach
agreement;
• Voice record the sessions and provide material upon which can be written and drawn.
FGD’s are a good platform to brainstorm to provide “out of the box” ideas without a direct
commitment of the firm. By requesting KLM and AAS participants to work together,
positioning them around a round table alternating each representative and stressing that
challenges are to be approached objectively, a firm independent atmosphere is created. The
options resulting from the FGD can show to have a wider application than the challenge it
was generated for.
154 R.P. Perié

As this research provided a snapshot of the situation during the first half year of 2008,
possible causality of relationships between factors could not be proven. To establish this
from the generated options by the FGD, a treatment program could be developed. The
treatment program, i.e. the selected options, should be conceptualized by linking back again
to factors of the DFA model. In case the treatment program is implemented, another cross-
sectional study at a later point in time could measure the results of the treatment. As such, as
part of a longitudinal study, causal relationships between factors can be proven or disproven.
The linking of options to the DFA model and subsequently determining their occurrence
score in new research could provide insight in the most important factors within the specific
business process under consideration.
It has been mentioned that a FGD is a good platform for the creation of a firm independent
atmosphere for generation of an objective way-ahead for dyadic firms. However, as the
execution of a FGD falls outside the interests of the research question, it is suggested for
further research but not as part of this dissertation.
R.P. Perié 155

156 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE DISCUSSION
7 DISCUSSION
In the first paragraph of this chapter the research validity is discussed. Subsequently research
limitations are addressed in the second paragraph. An additional short literature research
regarding complementary and involuntary relations is described in the third paragraph. The
last paragraph lists some final reflections.
7.1 RESEARCH VALIDITY

The applicability of this research to other settings and to be able to comment on the overall
quality of the research that is performed, it is important to discuss the research validity.
Validity is the best available approximation to the truth of a given proposition, inference or
conclusion (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Therefore, the four important aspects of research
validity are discussed here, i.e. conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity and
external validity. Discussions of the threats to the four types of validity indicate the research
limitations.
Conclusion Validity
Conclusion validity deals with the question whether any kind of relationship between
variables exists (Trochim, 2005).
The Delft Factors for Alignment model is the result of an extensive literature research. The
relationship between factors and alignment, and factors and constructs exists. Mutually
exclusive definitions of Factors for Alignment lead to a coherent model.
Internal Validity
Internal validity concerns the question whether the identified relationships between variables
are causal (Trochim, 2005).
Although relationships exist between the Factors for Alignment, no causal relationship is
proven in this study. The results provided in this document are a cross-sectional study of the
situation. Only after the implementation of alignment of the factors and after the introduction
of another measurement at a later point in time, as part of a longitudinal study, conclusions
on causality or no-causality between factors could be drawn.
Although this research focuses solely on the interaction between KLM and AAS, it must be
kept in mind that there are more actors involved such as LVNL and the Dutch government.
Therefore the causality of relationships, if any, cannot be seen as a pure result of the
interaction between KLM and AAS.
Construct Validity
Construct validity deals with the question whether the theoretical constructs have been
operationalized (Trochim, 2005).
R.P. Perié 157

DISCUSSION ALL FOR ONE
It can be remarked in this respect that based upon extensive literature research categorized
attributes defined from this literature research are linked to the previously mentioned titles of
the constructs of Gibbs (2006). Subsequently research establishes that from the creation of
these attributes, that are linked to the titles of constructs of Gibbs (2006), have
complementary roles in defining specific factors. The subsequently created Delft Factors for
Alignment (DFA) model consists of all relevant Factors for Alignment. In other words, the
DFA model is considered to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE).
To minimize the threat of diverging interpretations of factor definitions, these definitions are
created and applied in collaboration with other independent researchers.
Regarding the questions in the questionnaire, these are susceptible to various interpretations
of respondents. It cannot be excluded that one or more respondents have a diverging idea
about what is being asked, from which the researchers intended.
Moreover, the scale, which is used, is a 1 to 7 Likert scale. Only the extremes of the scale are
defined. This leaves room for respondents’ individual interpretation of the points on this
scale. This might result in divergence of values of each factor between the respondents. For
example, a 3 to respondent X can have a different meaning than a 3 to respondent Y.
In order to objectify the interpretation of results during the analysis, e.g. the linking of issues
to factors is carried out in collaboration with the counterpart researcher. As such a consistent
interpretation of factor definitions between the two researchers is assured and the likelihood
of replicability is increased, i.e. its reliability.
External Validity
External validity is the degree to which the conclusions in this study can be generalized to
other situations, i.e. different time, place, setting or other persons (Trochim, 2005).
This research is focused on four specific inter-dependent business processes at KLM and
AAS and the alignment thereof. Due to time constraints and the time intensive research
methods of interviews only a limited number of available and knowledgeable respondents are
interviewed. As one of the research goals is to identify the issues present within the business
processes, and to acquire an idea of the implications of these issues throughout the business
processes, it is determined to interview respondents from different hierarchical levels; i.e.
strategic, tactical and operational level. This implies however, that an extremely small
number of respondents per hierarchical level is available to draw valid conclusions that hold
for each level. This is the reason why in the analysis of the interview data, no differentiation
is made between hierarchical levels of respondents within the research population. This
differentiation however is possible due to rigorous coding of obtained data.
The opinions presented in this document cannot be viewed as the opinion of all employees in
a hierarchical level, nor of all employees involved in the business processes under
consideration. Nor can the presented conclusions be generalized to a general opinion of KLM
or AAS as a whole. However, it cannot be denied that the issues, which are mentioned in the
interviews, are present among all respondents. Moreover, with appropriate care one can state
that issues belonging to problem areas, which fall in the HIGH potential for alignment of the
comparison plots, are supported by all respondents involved in the specific processes.
158 R.P. Perié

7.2 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

The small number of respondents in analysis of the four dyadic business processes
significantly limits statistical validity. Within the small number of respondents, some are also
involved in more than one inter-dependent business process which may confound the
research results.
Hard conclusions regarding comparison of a general ranking of factors of the four pairs of
inter-dependent business processes are not appropriate as the dyadic firms themselves are
different, and each of the researched business processes are not only different but also at
different decision-making levels within their respective firms, as well as their personnel etc.
Prudence is advised in combining research results of the four pairs of dyadic business
processes. However, an indicative comparison summary may be possible.
It is noted that the model of Albers et al. (2005), Figure 1-10 and Figure 1-11, derived from
Porter’s research, does not take the environment or context into account which became
apparent during analysis of the dyadic business process Environmental Capacity.
The support for this research by students, aspiring to obtain their Master of Science diploma
as an Aerospace Engineer, obviously limits a feasible rigorous direction for optimizing this
research. That limitation was consciously accepted for their benefit.
7.3 COMPLEMENTARY AND INVOLUNTARY RELATIONS

Recognizing the complex nature of the airline-airport relationship, the objective of an
additional literature research is to find previous research on the subject of involuntary and/or
complementary relations, including analogies from other fields which may describe those
situations. This, in turn, intends to extend or supplement the DFA model by additional
incorporation of new constructs or factors or both to ensure that the model is as exhaustive as
possible to capture all variables that would enable alignment.
Based on this additional literature research, the following are provisional conclusions:
• The extant literature covers a great deal of information on the subject of alliance,
collaboration, co-operation, partnership, joint venture etc. from various strategic
perspectives such as resource based view, network theory to name a few. However,
causal studies on e.g. involuntary aspects in such relationships appear to be under-
researched or explored, to say the least;
• Available literature on inter-firm involuntary interaction/relationships point out two
pertinent factors: “protected market” and “state interference through rules and
regulations” as primary causes for limiting the freedom of choice for interacting
partner(s). In a deregulated market (ex post regulation) such as air transport services,
the first scenario has limited applicability. Regulatory interference is applicable. For
instance airports are increasingly subjected to environmental regulations. This is in
turn raises issues such as: how are these requirements enforced by airports on airlines
to achieve compliance to the regulations? The DFA model captures this aspect of the
dyad interaction by the Construct “Cooperation” and its corresponding factors and
attributes therein;
R.P. Perié 159

• Research objective of the additional literature research was “Which are the factor(s)
for alignment in a specific situation of Involuntary or Complementary Relationship?”
Based on the literature search and limited results, no new variables were discovered
that were not encompassed by the previously mentioned model. Albeit the search did
not yield any substantial information nor shed substantive light on the subject; it
provides an avenue for further research on this particular aspect of inter-firm
relationship and thereby contributes to the body of knowledge;
• Viewed from the other end of the continuum, it raises the question of the significance
of involuntary aspect to the overall inter-firm network development;
• Based upon the results of additional literature research, the DFA model appears to
cover all the factors that enable alignment.
7.4 REFLECTION
In addition to results of a more analytical nature, there are also lessons to be learned from the
entire process of completing this research. The support for this research by two pairs of
students assigned to a specific firm yet collaborating on parallel research was unique. It was
expected that it would present a challenge in coordination and this proved to be true. At a
certain stage of the research it was determined that slight differences in interpretation did
occur. To compensate, the analysis was repeated in collaboration with the counterpart
researcher. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to designate one researcher to
analyze a business process for both firms. In hindsight, the results of this research could also
have been achieved if interview and questionnaire data were exchanged prior to analysis, or
if a single researcher had been introduced at both firms in order to obtain data from these two
firms. Another option would have been to start off with a more intense collaboration between
the researchers addressing the same inter-dependent business processes from the beginning.
However this is contrary to the intention of the final thesis, which is to test individual
research qualifications of Master of Science students.
In a group effort, there will always be instances where one has to conform to others. Once
something is set in motion it is important to consider if the expected improvements are worth
the effort of making changes. This was definitely the case in the data analysis phase, where
the end result would not have been as satisfying if the research at KLM and AAS had
remained strictly separate. Close co-operation in the process of linking factors to issues has
ensured a consistent interpretation of data which is an essential element in an attempt to
comprehend the alignment of the KLM - AAS relation.
On the other hand, the benefits of changing the questionnaire midway through the research
did not outweigh the impact of disrupting all four research projects. It was deemed more
important to present the same questionnaire to everyone involved during the research. It was
created to query alignment of any organization. In a more polished form, it could have been
distributed to the entire KLM and AAS organizations by email. Unfortunately the number of
knowledgeable respondents in this research was limited and in the interest of correlation of
data, the decision was made to only distribute the questionnaire to these individuals in person.
At the start of this research the intention was to measure alignment of four inter-dependent
business processes in the alignment of KLM and AAS. To make this feasible, a model has
been developed which describes all aspects of alignment. By using this DFA model, the
160 R.P. Perié

relation has been characterized from the inside out and the points of view of both firms in a
number of issues have been registered.
Yet in the end actually measuring alignment is difficult and may be unachievable. Judging by
the DFA model, alignment seems to be an intangible feeling among employees which cannot
be expressed in an exact percentage. It is something that firms which intend to improve
efficiency and effectiveness should always strive to increase. In the application of analysis,
this research has shown that it is feasible to indicate which aspects of alignment score poorly
at a given moment in time. The DFA model is a diagnostic tool in this respect. Managers can
use this information to focus their immediate efforts on these aspects. But once the
performance in these areas has improved and additional analysis is carried out, other Factors
for Alignment will surface as weak areas in the dyadic relation. Improving alignment is a
never-ending process, in which no target value can be set.
The publicized results in October 2008 of the Alders Table regarding possible future increase
of aircraft movements at AAS, which inadvertently touches upon the dyadic business
processes Environmental Capacity and Network Planning, is not be related to the results of
this research.
Although “learner led learning” implies independent scientific research under absolute
minimal supervision, it does provide more exhilaration for the result upon completion.
Personally, this researcher did not experience any important disappointments other than
regular perceptions of slow progress. The motivation of both the students supporting this
research as well as their supervisors at KLM and AAS was exemplary. Commitment for this
unique research project was gratifying, which provided an added incentive to all those
involved.
R.P. Perié 161

162 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Adobar, H. (2006) The role of personal relationships in inter-firm alliances: benefits, dysfunctions, and some
suggestions, Business Horizons, 49(6), 473-486.
Albers, S., Koch, B., Ruff, C. (2005) Strategic alliances between airlines and airports - theoretical assessment
and practical evidence, Journal of Air Transport Management, 11, 49-58
Alders, H. (2007) Report to Minister of Transport a.o., Results of Consultations Regarding Schiphol and its
Environment.
Alders, H. (2007) Convenant Hinderbeperkende Maatregelen Schiphol, tkkst nr. 29665, nr. 48.
Alter, C., Hage, J.H. (1993) Organizations working together, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Anderson, J.C., Hakansson, H., Johanson,J. (1994) Dyadic Business Relationships within a Business Network
Context, Journal of marketing, 58 (October), 1-15.
Andersson, A.H., Virtanen, H., Kock, S. (2007) Dyadic cooperation and relationship effects: an empirical
study, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Vaasa, Finland
Ash, L.N., (2007) A Tale of Three KIWI's: coalition lessons from Afghanistan, U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings, 133 (8), p.52-53.
Aubert, B.A., Vanden Bosch, B., Mignerat, M. (2003) Towards the Measurement of Process Integration, HEC
Montreal, Quebec, p.1-17
Auerbach, S., Koch, B., (2007) Cooperative approaches to managing air traffic efficiently - the airline
perspective, Journal of Air Transport Management, 13, p.37-44.
Axelson, B., Easton, G. (1992) Industrial networks: a new view of reality, Routledge, London.
Barnes, T.A., Pashby, I.R., Gibbons, A.M. (2006) Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a
practical management tool, International Journal of Project Management, 24, 395-404.
Barringer, B.R., Harrison, J.S. (2000) Walking a tightrope: creating value through inter-organizational
relationships, Journal of management, 26(3), 367-403.
Beer, M., Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., Tekie, E.B. (2005) Strategic Management as Organizational Learning:
Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process, Long Range Planning.
Bider, I., (2003) Choosing Approach to Business Process Modeling - Practical Perspective,
Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. (1996) Co-opetition: 1. A revolutionary mindset that combines
competition and co-operation, 2.The game theory strategy that's changing the game of business, Doubleday,
New York.
Brown, L. (1993) The New Shorter English Dictionary, Volume 1 and 2, Oxford University Press, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M. (1998) Competing on the Edge, Strategy as Structured Chaos, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
R.P. Perié 163

REFERENCES ALL FOR ONE
Brown, M., Falk, A., Fehr, E. (2004) Relational Contracts and the Nature of Market Interactions, Econometrica,
72(3), p. 747-780.
Bruno, M. (2007), Leadership Vacuum, Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 12, p.79.
Bouw, P. (2001) The allianced enterprise, global strategies for corporate collaboration: making alliances work,
lessons from the airline industry.
Christiaans, H.H.C.M., Fraaij, A.L.A., Graaf, E. de, Hendriks, C.F. (2004) Methodologie van technisch-
wetenschappelijk onderzoek, LEMMA, Utrecht.
Crandall, R.L. (2008) Bring back airline regulation, Aviation Week& Space Technology, June 16.
Dalbokar, P.A., Neeley, S.M. (1998) Managing interdependency: a taxonomy for business-to-business
relationships, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 13(6), p.439-460.
Das, T.K., Teng, B-S (2000) A resource-based theory of strategic alliances, Journal of management, 26(1), 31-
61.
Day, G.S. (1977) Diagnosing the Product Portfolio, Journal of Marketing, 41, p. 29-38.
Delfmann, W., Baum, H., Auerbach, S., Albers, S. (2005) Strategic Management in the Aviation Industry,
Ashgate, Kolner Wissenschaftsverlag, Aldershot
Doganis, R. (2001) Flying off course: the economics of international airlines, Routledge.
Driessen, E.K., Drijgers, M., Fiksinski, M.A. (2008) The Search for factors for Alignment of Business
Processes,
Driessen, E.K. (2008) Schiphol Main Port Alignment, an analysis of inter-dependent business processes at
AAS and KLM, MSc. Thesis, TU Delft.
Drijgers, M (2008) Great Firms, Think Aligned, a mirrored perspective on alignment of AAS - KLM inter-
organizational business processes, MSc. Thesis, TU Delft.
Duane Ireland, R., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D., (2002) Alliance Management as a Source of Competitive
Advantage, Journal of Management, 28(3), p.413-446.
Dubois, A., Hakansson, H. (1997) Relationships as activity links, in Mark Ebers (ed.) The formation of inter-
organizational networks, Guildford, UK.
Dul, J., Hak, T. (2008) Case Study Methods in Business Research, Elsevier, Butterworth-Heineman.
Dwyer, F.R., Tanner, J.F. (2006) Business Marketing: connecting strategy, relationships, and learning,
McGraw-Hill International Edition, 3ed., New York.
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H. (1998) The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Inter-organizational
Competitive Advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23(4), p. 660-679.
Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.W. (2004), Using Supplier Networks to Learn Faster, MIT Sloan Management Review,
45(3), p.57-62.
164 R.P. Perié

Dyer, J.H., Kale, P., Singh, H. (2004) When to Ally & When to Acquire, Harvard Business Review, Top-Line
Growth, July-August.
Easton, G., Araujo, L. (1992) Non-economic exchange in industrial networks, in Axelsson, B., Easton, G. (eds.)
Industrial networks: a new view of reality, Routledge, London, p. 62-88.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case-study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4),
532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Galunic, D.C. (2000 Co-evolving: at last, a way to make synergies work, Harvard Business
Review, p.91-101.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., (2000) Dynamic Capabilities: What are they?, Strategic Management Journal,
21, p. 1105-1121.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (2002), Has Strategy Changed?, MIT Sloan Management Review, p.88-91
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges, Academy
of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Fiksinski, M.A. (2008) Great Firms Think Aligned, a mirrored perspective on alignment of KLM - AAS inter-
organizational business processes, MSc. Thesis, TU Delft.
Florida, R., Goodnight (2005), Managing for Creativity, Harvard Business Review, p.124-131.
Freytag, P. Vagn, Ritter, T. (2005) Dynamics of relationships and networks: creation, maintenance and
destruction as managerial challenges, Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 644-647.
Fry, M. (2007) The Key Levels in an Organization, Enterprise Leadership.org, p. 1-6.
Fuhr, J., Beckers, T., (2006) Vertical governance between airlines and airports - A transaction cost analysis,
Berlin University of Technology, Working Group for Infrastructure Policy, p.1-26
Fuhr, J., (2005) Vertical Coordination in the infrastructure supply relationship between airlines and airports - A
transcation cost perspective, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, p. 1-31.
Gadde, L-E, Hakansson, H. (1994) The changing role of purchasing: reconsidering three strategic issues,
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 1, 1, p.27-35.
Gadde, L-E, Hakansson, H. (1993) Professional purchasing, International Thompson Business Press, Routledge
& Kegan Paul, London.
Gibbs, R.K. (2006) An Exploration of the Effect of Relationship Strength on Satisfaction and Sales
Performance on a Dual Channel Context, Dissertation, University of Gloucestershire.
Graham, A. (2005) Managing airports: an international perspective, Elsevier Butterworth-Heineman, 2nd Ed.
Oxford.
Graziano, A.M., Raulin, M.L. (2004) Research Methods, a process of inquiry, Pearson Education Group,
Boston.
Grotenhuis, F.D.J. (2005) Making mergers and acquisitions work: creating value by managing cultural
integration, Power Point presentation.
R.P. Perié 165

Grotenhuis, F.D.J. (2001) Patterns of acculturation in technology acquisitions, Labyrint Publications.
Guagenti, T., (2007) The Message: Flexible, Cost Effective, and Compatible, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,
133(8), p.68-70.
Hagberg-Andersson, A. (2006) Does adaptation pay-off?, Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 202-209.
Hakansson, H., Snehota, I. (2006) No business is an island: The network concept of business strategy,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, p.256-270.
Hammer, M., Champy, J (1994) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution, Harper
Collins, New York.
Hansson, T., Ringbeck, J., Franke, M., Flight for Survival - A new operating model for airlines, Booz-Allen-
Hamilton, p.1-3.
Heide, J.B., John, G. (1992) Do norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?, Journal of marketing, 56, p. 32-44
Houlgate, K.P. (2007), End the Backyard Brawl, US Naval Institute Proceedings, November, p.32-36.
Johnston, R., Lawrence, P.R. (1988) Beyond Vertical Integration: the rise of the value-adding partnership,
Harvard Business Review, July-August, p.94-101..
Kale, P., Singh. H., (2007) Building firm capabilities through learning: The Role of the alliance learning
process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success, Strategic Management Journal, 28, p.981-1000.
Kalwani, M.U., Narayandas, N. (1995) Long-term manufacturing-supplier relationships: do they pay-off for
supplier firms?, Journal of Marketing, 59, p.1-16.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (2004) Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets, Harvard Business
Review, 82(2), 52-63.
KLM, AAS, LVNL (2005) Werken aan de toekomst van Schiphol en de regio, Amsterdam.
KLM, AAS, LVNL, NLR, TU Delft (2005) SIM Research Program, Amsterdam
Kolk, A., Veen, M. van der (2002) Dilemmas of balancing Organizational and Public Interests: How
environment affects strategy in Dutch main ports, European Management Journal, 20(1), p.45-54.
Kuchinke, B.A., Sickmann, J. (2005) The joint venture terminal 2 at Munich Airport and the consequences: A
competition economic analysis, Technical University Ilmenau, Germany, p.1-24.
Lam, P.K., Chin, K.S. (2005) Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in
collaborative new product development, Industrial Marketing Management.
Littler, D., Leverick, F., Bruce, M. (1995) Factors affecting the process of collaborative product development:
A study of UK manufacturers of information and communication technology products, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 12, 16-32.
Lui, S.S., Ngo, H-Y., Hon, A.H.Y. (2006) Coercive strategy in inter-firm co-operation
Margretta, J. (1998) The power of virtual integration: an interview with DELL Computers Michael Dell,
166 R.P. Perié

Harvard Business Review, 73-84.
Man, A.P. de, Zee, H. van der, Geurts, D. (2001) Succesvol samenwerken: over strategische samenwerking in
het netwerktijdperk, Pearson Education Uitgeverij BV, Amsterdam.
Man, A.P. de (1996) Organizing for Competitiveness, Dissertation, Eburon, Delft.
Markczy, L. (2004) Multiple motives behind single acts of co-operation, International Journal of Human
Resource management, 15(6), 1018-1039.
Mohr, J., Spekman, R.E. (1994) Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication
Behaviour, and Conflict Resolution Techniques, Strategic Management Journal, 15, p.135-152.
Ministry of Transport (2006) Innovatie: Mobiliteit en Water, voor een Bereikbaar, Schoon en Veilig Nederland.
Ministry of Transport a.o. (2006) Evaluatie Schiphol Beleid.
Ministry of Transport (2005) Main Port Schiphol Policy Information, background document, The Hague.
Ministry of Transport (2003) Plan van aanpak Main Port Schiphol, version 16 October 2003, Staatsdrukkerij
Uitgevers, The Hague.
Murphy, G., Likert, R. (1938) Public opinion and the individual: a psychology study of student attitudes on
public questions wit a re-rest five years later, Harper, New York.
OC&C Strategy Consultants (2006) Main Port Inc.: Creating the most competitive hub through an integrated
approach, Value proposition for an allied hub operation, Management Summary, KLM and AAS, Amsterdam.
Oei, H.Y., (2007) Strategic management for inter-organizational processes in aviation building for the future of
Schiphol Main Port, MSc. Thesis, TU Delft.
Persson, S.G., Steinby, C. (2006) Networks in a protected business context: Licenses as restraints and
facilitators, Industrial Marketing Management, 35, p. 870-880.
Pijpers, V.A. (2005) Cultures in networks, Working Paper
Pröpper, I.M.A.M., (2000) Samenwerking of autonomie in beleidsnetwerken, in Bestuurskunde: orgaan van de

vereniging voor Bestuurskunde, aflevering 3, p.106-116,(11).
Rennestraum, R. (2007) Survival through sustainable synergy, KLM and TU Delft, Amsterdam.
Reunis, M.R.B. (2007)The Effect of Influence Tactics on E-Procurement Adoption Cognitions, Dissertation,
TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
Rindfleisch, A., Moorman, C. (2003) Inter-firm Cooperation and Customer Orientation, Journal of Marketing
Research, 40(4), 1-3.
Ringbeck, J., Schneiderbauer, D., Mostajo, M., Fauser, B. (2007) Time for Take-Off: setting new strategic
directions for mid-sized European airlines, Booz-Allen-Hamilton, Germany.
Ringbeck, J., Hauser, R., Franke, M., Clayton, E. (2005) "Aero"- dynamics in the European airports sector:
Realignment needed due to changes in demand and cost pressure, Booz-Allen-Hamilton, Germany
R.P. Perié 167

Rother, M., Shook, J. (2003) Learning to See: value stream mapping to create value and eliminate muda, The
Lean Enterprise Institute, Version 1.3
Rozemeijer, F.A. (2000) Creating corporate advantage in purchasing, Dissertation, TU Eindhoven.
Schiphol Group, KLM en Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland (2006) Werken aan de toekomst van Schiphol en de
regio: de lange termijn visie van AAS, KLM en LVNL, KLM, Amstelveen.
SIM (2005) Samenwerkingsverband Innovatieve Main Port, Programmaplan, Haarlemmermeer.
Schiere, C.H. (2006) Informatievoorziening in goede banen geleid: een onderzoek naar hoe
Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland d.m.v. informatie de effectiviteit van haar netwerk kan verbeteren m.b.t. het
behalen van de Main Port doelstelling, MSc. Thesis, TU Twente.
Sparaco, P. (2008) Service before profits?, Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 4.
Speicher, K. (2007) Lean Routine, Airline Business, July, p.54-56.
Spekman, R.E. Carraway, R. (2006) Making the transition to collaborative buyer-seller relationships: an
emerging framework, Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 10-19.
Spekman, R.E., Forbes, T.M., Isabella, L.A., MacAvoy, T.C. (1998) Alliance Management: a view from the
past and a look to the future, Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 747-772.
Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tsupari, P., Sisto, J., Godenhjelm, P. Oksanen, O-P, Urrila, P. (2004) Yritysten liiketoimintasuhteet: selvitys
liiketoimintasuhteista ja verkostoitumisesta suomessa, Tilastokeskus & Elinkeinoelämän Keskusliitto
katsauksia 2004/6.
Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal (2006-2007) Evaluatie Schiphol Beleid, tkkst 29665, nrs. 44-49.
Universiteit van Amsterdam (2006) Connecting Cities: A Strong Main Port to Sustain the Netherlands
Competitive Edge.
Van de Ven, A.H., (1989) Nothing is Quite so Practical as a Good Theory, Academy of management Review,
14, 4, p.486-489.
Vereecke, A., Muylle, S. (2006) Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in Europe,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26, 11.
Verschuuren, P.J.M., (2005) De probleemstelling voor een onderzoek, Uitgeverij Spectrum, Utrecht.
Wever, C.J.C. (2008) Alignment of AAS - KLM collaboration on specific strategic business processes, MSc.
Theis, TU Delft.
Wilding, R., Humphries, A.S. (2006) Understanding collaborative supply chain relationships through the
application of the Williamson organizational failure framework, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 36(4), 309-329.
Williamson, O.E. (1970) Corporate Control and Business Behavior, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
Williamson, O. E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York, NY. The
168 R.P. Perié

Free Press.
Womack, J.P. (1996) Value Stream Mapping, Manufacturing Engineering, 136, 5, p.145-156.
Wu, F., Cavusgil, S.T. (2006) Organizational Learning, commitment, and joint value creation in inter-firm
relationships, Journal of Business Research, 59, 81-89.
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case study research, design and methods, Sage Publications, California.
R.P. Perié 169

170 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE APPENDICES
APPENDICES
Appendix A Process Descriptions
A.1 Environmental Capacity
A.2 Network Planning
A.3 Infrastructure Planning
A.4 Aircraft Stand Allocation
Appendix B Article Long/Short/Final List
B.1 Article Long List
B.2 Article Short List
B.3 Article Final List
Appendix C Construct Definitions and Questionnaire Contents
C.1 Construct Definitions
C.2 Questionnaire Contents
Appendix D Article Characteristics
Appendix E Key Documents
R.P. Perié 171

APPENDICES ALL FOR ONE
172 R.P. Perié

APPENDIX A PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
A.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY
The limits for growth at AAS are not based upon physical capacity, but rather on the
restrictions placed by the government upon the number of take-offs and landings (Ministry of
Transport et al., 2006b). These restrictions have been determined to cope with environmental
issues. Pollution can affect air, the earth or water through leaks, spillage or emissions.
However in the current regulatory system noise emission levels are the main limiting factor.
This emphasis is meant to address the endured nuisance of inhabitants in surrounding
municipalities. In contrast to larger European airports where a lack of physical space places a
restriction upon further development plans of these airports, a unique situation has developed
in the Netherlands as at AAS environmental capacity has limited its growth.
The government has chosen to reach a consensus with all involved and opposing parties. In
the process of environmental capacity the government at the national, regional, and local
level, the aviation sector as well as neighboring residents, are to provide a list of
recommendations that is to be supported by all involved. After evaluation, these
recommendations will be used by the government to decide upon the leeway that will be
afforded to the development of aviation activities on and around AAS during the years to
come.
The aviation sector consisting of hub, hub-operator and air traffic control (AAS, KLM,
LVNL), has a common interest in striving for jointly formulated recommendations that
propose more efficient operations in combination with room to grow in relation to perceived
nuisance. Therefore they have decided that, next to preparing themselves individually for the
overt process with other stakeholders, they will do so collectively with the aim of providing
aviation-wide proposals. Within the larger collaboration of the aviation sector, the relation
between AAS and KLM in the context of environmental capacity is one business process of
which the alignment of AAS and KLM is examined. This process therefore concerns
collaboration of the aviation sector within the so-called Alders process. The Alders process
aims to develop an advice to national government regarding the future of AAS in its
environment. That has determined the designation of the business process as environmental
capacity of AAS and KLM. The research question posed by KLM and AAS is whether the
aviation sector is effective in representing their interests within this process.
The title of this business process, i.e. environmental capacity, has evolved to Alders Table in
view of its recognisability by the participants.
The structure of the stakeholders that produces the recommendations to government is

commonly known as the Alders Table. In this research the focus within the Alders Table
process is upon the collaboration of the aviation sector in the Environmental Capacity
Consultation (Maatschappelijk Capaciteits Overleg, MCO), which in March 2008 was
succeeded by the Krul Table. This collaboration is to prepare for the Vermeegen Table
meetings, which - in turn - is the preparatory meeting for the Alders Table meetings. In the
Vermeegen Table representatives of all stakeholders coordinate eight project groups of the
Alders Table process. Vermeegen et al. also draft actions and recommendations for the
R.P. Perié 173

Alders Table to debate. The following discusses the main elements of the Alders Table
process, as seen in Figure A-1.
Figure A-1: The Alders Process
Alders Table
The task of providing recommendations for the medium- to long-term period (until
2018/2020) is commissioned to Mr. Hans Alders, former Minister and Royal Commissioner
to Groningen. He has completed a similar assignment for the short term (2007-2010). This
includes recommendations in a letter to the ministers of V&W and VROM (letter Minister of
Transport, 15 June 2007, tkkst. 29665). For the short-term of the environmental capacity
process several policy alternatives are analyzed, agreements are signed, activities are initiated
and recommendations are made.
The meeting is presided over by Mr. Alders, known as the “Alders Table”. It takes place on a
monthly basis. Participants come from top-level management within the respective
organizations, including the CEO of AAS and KLM. These representatives are authorized to
speak and make decisions on behalf of the parties they represent. As leaders in their own
industry etc., they have many responsibilities but limited time available. Due to the complex
nature of these meetings and the fact that all participants are free to provide their opinion,
these meetings easily extend to lengthy discussions. Therefore an additional preparatory
meeting is created with the goal to streamline the procedures. This is the Vermeegen Table.
Project groups are formed to cover all aspects that are part of the complete assignment as
commissioned to the Alders Table. These projects include the realization of previously
decided short term measures, development of an environmental impact assessment (MER)
174 R.P. Perié

and the development of an environmental cost-benefit analysis (MKBA). The Main Port
Network Planning is also developed by a project group.
Vermeegen Table
Mr. Vermeegen presides over delegations of the residents, the airport, air traffic control, hub
carrier and representatives from the national, regional and local government, who convene
each week. The Vermeegen Table is a meeting in which all stakeholders in the development
of activities on and around the airport can voice their opinions, in the interest of preparing the
agenda as well as drafting documents for the Alders Table. Discussions centre on elements of
different alternatives, developed to the point where they are ready for debate at the Alders
Table. This entails pursuing promising options, listing of pros and cons to all decisions and
reporting the results. During the Vermeegen meetings the different project groups provide
updates regarding their respective progress.
Participants
The stakeholders are divided into three groups: governing bodies, citizens and the aviation
sector. The same parties at the Alders Table are represented at the Vermeegen Table, however
usually by other individuals:
• V&W (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management) and VROM
(Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) are the two
governmental bodies charged with matters concerning Schiphol airport and the
greater metropolitan area surrounding it. Provincial and municipal representatives
gathered in the BRS (Bestuurlijke Regiegroep Schiphol), of which the most
prominent are the cities of Amsterdam and Haarlemmermeer as well as the province
Noord-Holland;
• LVNL (Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland), KLM (part of Air France-KLM) and AAS
(Amsterdam Airport Schiphol), represent the aviation sector;
• Individuals appointed by the local residents.
Environmental Capacity Consultation (Maatschappelijk Capaciteits Overleg, MCO)

Parties involved at the MCO meetings are AAS, representing the airport, KLM, as the largest
user of the airport and LVNL which regulates air traffic leading to and around the airport.
These three are known as “the sector” during meetings at the level of Vermeegen or Alders
Table. Each would be seriously impaired by a limitation of their capabilities to develop the
airport.
MCO is a meeting in which the parties of the aviation sector that are represented at the
Vermeegen Table discuss their respective points of view. They attempt to reach an
understanding by establishing common goals to avoid discussion amongst themselves at the
Vermeegen Table. Such discussions could provide stakeholders outside the aviation sector
with arguments for proposals that are even less attractive to the sector than its own mutual
consensus. Whenever possible the sector attempts to create common strategies to best serve
the individual interests of the sector. On the other hand it also occurs that the parties of the
MCO cannot agree. In that case they are aware of their disagreement going into discussions
at the Vermeegen Table, and assume separate positions. This is a form of preparation as the
parties “agree to disagree”, thereby avoiding major surprises within the sector. However the
R.P. Perié 175

goal for the sector is to prevent a radical halt to steady growth of the aviation sector in the
Netherlands.
A.2 NETWORK PLANNING
Airlines and airports develop their network. In June 2007 the Netherlands Government issued
a document to KLM and AAS regarding their formulation of a vision with respect to the
creation of a joint network planning (Alders, 2007). This document officially requested the
definition of the specific network required for a Main Port. This definition would provide
insight in the flights supporting the Main Port function and consequently identify those
flights which could be denied access to the Main Port by a new version of the Netherlands
Aviation Act. This new regulation strives to meet two objectives in relation to the Main Port,
i.e. reducing the perception of nuisance while retaining or increasing its economic benefits.
In an ideal situation the Main Port could continue to develop, without increasing the
perception of nuisance in the surrounding area.
Although KLM and AAS started their analysis individually, both quickly concluded that a
joint contribution would not only provide clarity to the government but would also carry
more weight.
The first step in responding to the government’s request regarding the composition of the
network for the Main Port required the definition of different categories of air transport that
operate from AAS. Subsequently a prioritization is feasible of the traffic at AAS, i.e. the
flights that contribute to the Main Port and those that do not. An essential aspect of the Main
Port function is its contribution to the national and local economy. KLM and AAS agree that
this contribution is mainly due to business traffic connecting The Netherlands to the global
economy. That - in turn - also attracts foreign firms to locate their offices at AAS and/or
operate through this Main Port. As the contribution of business traffic benefits the national
and local economy, it is necessary to define the nature of flights to and from AAS. A new
concept was introduced, i.e. the reason to designate a flight as business flight is found in the
destination of the connection. Instead of merely looking at passengers, destination is the
starting point to determine whether flights are of a business nature. Other aspects only
become of interest after this prime distinction is made. Some of these aspects are the number
of passengers on a flight and the ratio of business – leisure passengers on a flight. These
aspects form a template which can be used to filter out those flights which are important for
the main port from a business point of view. One of the consequences of this distinction of
destinations is that Low Cost Carriers/Low Fare Airlines (LCC/LFA) can be of importance to
the Main Port.
After determining the variables of the Main Port network, which provide the elements of
importance from a business point of view, the result indicates those elements which are
superfluous or non-essential to the Main Port. The government’s view is that further
development of the Main Port is only feasible while simultaneously reducing the perception
of nuisance to the surrounding area. This would imply that non-essential elements, from a
business point of view, could be so designated after careful analysis by the government - for
their new version of the Netherlands Aviation Act - to leave the main port to operate at other
more suitable airports.
176 R.P. Perié

KLM is unlikely to dismiss any of its flights from the network of the Main Port. AAS would
rather welcome more traffic than less. It is in the interests of both KLM and AAS to present
their joint proposal to the government to avoid decisions to the detriment of these firms as
well as to the Main Port.
A.3 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
Viewed from KLM
The process for the formulation of the KLM infrastructure requirements follows the
definition of traffic growth scenario’s, which are developed by the sector parties in the
“Werkgroep Markt”. The sector parties involved in the process are KLM, AAS, Transavia,
MartinAir and LVNL.
In order to coordinate the middle to long-term planning process within the sector a ground-
side and an air-side work group has been set-up; “Werkgroep Ground” and “Werkgroep Air”
respectively’. The chairmen of the these work groups align the most important interface
subjects together as taxiway and runway capacity (air) and aircraft stands, gate and pier
capacity (ground). The “Werkgroep Ground KLM”, the KLM contribution to the sector’s
“Werkgroep Ground’, consists of representatives of the Network Development department,
Capacity Management and Airport Affairs. Airport Affairs chairs this work group. This work
group’s main focus are the infrastructure requirements of KLM, which fall under the
responsibility of KLM Ground Services. However, as all infrastructural developments have
considerable impact on the visit costs, basically all requirements for infrastructure at
Schiphol are considered. The ‘Werkgroep Ground’ determines the capacity requirements
based upon the agreed traffic scenarios in the ‘Werkgroep Markt’. The scope of this working
group is the aviation related infrastructure of the terminal area. Capacity issues are
considered in relation to capacity of other subjects. For example, capacity in the terminal is
to match the capacity at the aircraft stands.
The determination of the capacity requirements for all of Schiphol is defined in close
cooperation with AAS, such that KLM interests are secured with respect to other carriers at
Schiphol. The input from ‘Werkgroep Ground KLM’ to the sector ‘Werkgroep Ground’
results in a complete picture of what the foreseen capacity requirements are. Dependent upon
the capacity issues, a more detailed analysis of the matter can be necessary.
Capacity planning as seen by the department of Ground Infrastructure involves the following
categories:
• Gates and aircraft stands;
• Flow of passengers, determining requirements for space in airport facilities, in m2;
• Baggage;
• Check-in;
• Reclaim;
• Filters, e.g. Security and Customs;
• Lounge.
Capacity constraints can be expected in all of these categories in the future. As the
infrastructural capacity planning process is cyclical, i.e. on an annual basis, a timeline for the
R.P. Perié 177

growth or increase of infrastructure requirements at Schiphol is obtained. Each new capacity

requirement will be compared to projections which have been made in previous years. In
case large discrepancies occur, an in depth analysis is necessary to determine its cause and
effect.
The final output of this cyclical process is a document called the Airport Capacity Plan
(ACP), which is published every year by AAS. Based upon this document further
adjustments and improvement can be made to the availability of infrastructure for specific
market segments. It should be noted that the infrastructure planning process is a cyclical
process, which takes ¾ to one year. The planning time frame is five years.
The department of Network Development is responsible for the development of two

scenarios, i.e. growth scenarios and traffic scenarios.
Growth scenarios take into account growth factors for a number of aspects. The “Werkgroep
Markt” delivers the starting points for these aspects. The most important aspects are:
• Market growth (passengers and freight);
• Developments and trends in aviation;
• Capacity developments at competitive hubs;
• Peak hour capacity;
• Growth strategy of SkyTeam at Schiphol (including fleet developments).
Two of these aspects (of the above mentioned categories) are set to be variable, i.e. a high
and low growth factor. Which aspects are chosen as a variable is dependent on the expected
effect on the capacity requirements and preferably chosen such that the number of to be
developed traffic scenarios can be restricted to a reasonable number. For the other aspects, a
fixed growth factor is chosen. For the two variables, four scenarios are developed i.e. high-
high, high-low, low-high and low-low. The four growth scenarios are valid for one year and
reflect possible traffic developments at Schiphol. Their primary goal is to facilitate the
planning process of the sector parties. Growth scenarios are usually not enough to determine
whether there is sufficient infrastructure available.
Therefore traffic scenarios are required and are drafted based upon the growth scenarios. For
the sake of simplicity all infrastructure aspects are assumed to follow the same growth
scenario. The traffic scenarios contain the flight schedule of a specific week. This week can
vary within a planning period (one year) for the sake of specific capacity calculations. For
example, for baggage calculations a summer peak week can be used, whereas for noise
capacity calculations a mean summer or winter week can be used.
A scenario is a projection of a situation for a specific year, which is based on assumptions.
As such the scenario is an approximation of what really can be expected of future
developments. Therefore, the full spectrum of scenarios (from high-high to low-low) must to
be taken into account. As infrastructural investments are obviously significant, it is important
to obtain a sound basis for the determination of requirements.
178 R.P. Perié

The traffic scenario’s provide insight in the expected developments of traffic and transport
volume. Next to the traffic scenario’s corresponding quality norms are to be determined.
This is done in the form of user requirements.
The user requirements for Ground Services are coordinated by the department Airport
Affairs. They are presented together with other KLM user requirements in the “Werkgroep
Markt” by the department KLM/LN (Network Planning). The complete list of user
requirements is a proper representation of the infrastructure requirements for each traffic
segment at Schiphol.
Viewed from AAS
The infrastructure planning process extends across all business areas of AAS. Alignment of
planning between the three areas is of vital importance as they are horizontally related. For
example, the Business Areas Aviation and Consumers both operate in the same terminal
therefore adaptations will directly affect each other’s processes. Although a strong horizontal
relation exists and infrastructural developments are carried out in an integrated manner, the
focus of this process description is upon the business area of Aviation.
The goal of the infrastructure planning process is that its main objective is to support the
airport processes as effective and efficient as possible. The aim is to plan and develop the
infrastructure such that the airport processes are supported by minimal infrastructure as is
feasible. Infrastructure does not only require large investment but also cumulative
maintenance and depreciation costs, which are in effect charged to the airport’s customers, i.e.
in general the airlines.
The infrastructure planning process at AAS looks far ahead in time. This long term view is
reflected in their organizational structure. The infrastructure planning and development flow
is illustrated by Figure A-2. Infrastructure planning commences at the department of Airport
Development, which has a scope or plan horizon of more than 5 years. The activities of
Airport Development involve subjects as “which steps need to be taken in the longer term to
facilitate future developments at AAS”.
R.P. Perié 179

Figure A-2: Infrastructure Planning and Development Process
The vision and strategy regarding the future of the main port, i.e. Main Port Vision, Long
Term vision, outlines the rationale of its existence and how it will be realized in the future.
This design of the future at AAS, provides the initiation of the infrastructure planning
process. The initial ideas are outlined in the AAS Spatial Development Plan 2015. The vision
and strategy result in the creation of the Master Plan, being an overall plan regarding
development of future airport facilities.
The separation of strategy and tactics is artificial but in general the scope of 5 years of the
business planning is a point where Airport Development transfers its responsibilities but
maintains a monitoring function. The level of interest of Airport Development is directed at
structural development planning. Their role changes when their conceptual plans start to
become more concrete in time. The more concrete they become, the higher the involvement
and input of the Capacity Management department will be. Capacity Management develops
the conceptual plans for integration into the business planning, being the 5 year plans.
Capacity Management determines the feasibility and necessity of the plans for integration
into the Airport Capacity Plan (ACP). The creation of the ACP is in an annual cycle,
characterized as being continuous. During the creation of the 5 year business planning, all
involved aviation sub-process owners provide their capacity input. The four sub-processes
constitute Airside Operations, Passenger Services, Baggage and Security. In advance of
commencing the annual planning, the Capacity Management department conducts a series of
pre-initiative studies for which the department of Infrastructure and the process owners
provide their input. Subsequently, from the 5 year plans the annual plans are developed by
the department of Infrastructure. Airport Development and Capacity Management define the
demand, i.e. ”what” needs to be done in the next few years. The Infrastructure department
provides “how” this ”what” question is answered in agreement with Airport Development,
180 R.P. Perié

the Capacity Management department and the operational process owners. The Infrastructure
department is therefore responsible for the translation of the ”how” question, i.e. “how can
capacity or other resources be increased by means of application of infrastructure or its
adaptation, such that the customer and thus the operation is satisfied?”.
The Infrastructure department consists of three infrastructure management divisions and one
development division. The development division, being Design & Review, is responsible for
monitoring the process for which new infrastructural requirements are developed or adapted.
Its primary tasks have mediating characteristics in which all collected requirements are
weighted, to reach the most logical and cost favorable solution with respect to its life cycle.
The projects stated in the business plan, which are included in the annual planning, enter an
initiative phase. This phase is carried out by the Design and Review division of the
Infrastructure department. Within the initiative phase all possible options for solutions are
investigated. Following the initiative phase, the definition phase commences, for which the
requirements are established and the most feasible and desired solution is formulated. From
the moment that the plan is formulated, the business case, global planning, global budget and
sketch designs are available and a decision is made by the Board of Directors. In case of an
approval by the Board of Directors, the Design & Review department is tasked with a
steering and monitoring role of the Design, Realization and Aftercare phases, which are
subsequently handed over to the Schiphol Project Management department. From the
initiative to the realization phase, the Capacity Management department maintains a
monitoring role and all related process owners maintain their involvement.
Within each step of infrastructure planning and development, KLM is informed and involved
on a frequent basis. At the strategic level, the bilateral contacts are both with KLM as an
airline and ground handler. At the tactical level during the ACP cycle, most bilateral contacts
regarding infrastructure are with the Ground Services unit of KLM, being the largest ground
handler at AAS.
One of basic elements of infrastructure planning is the working group Market. This working
group is a joint effort of AAS, KLM and other airlines. They create future scenarios for
demand and supply at Schiphol airport. A deliverable is a flight planning prediction for the
next 5 years for Schiphol Airport. This prediction of flight planning is subsequently
translated into its effect on all operational aviation processes. This implies “how will the
capacity demand grow for each aviation process, and will the ratio of capacity supply vs.
demand be satisfactory”. The department of Capacity Management creates an ACP entailing
a five year outlook of all possible projects to be initiated to satisfy future capacity demands
for airport operational processes. The projects of the ACP are developed after comparing
current operational capacity supply - by data input from the specific process owners - and
estimated future capacity demands with data input from the working group Market.
The ACP focuses on promoting an integral capacity plan at Schiphol and improvement of the
decision-making process and the proposals for necessary investments to be made. The co-
operation within the ACP cycle with KLM consists of several consecutive steps in which the
content of documents is evaluated and comments are provided and discussed.
R.P. Perié 181

An AAS norm document is created entailing operational norms which determine the minimal
performances. KLM has its own user requirements document by which their operational
norms are stated. Both documents are jointly compared and adjusted in such a way that both
approach similarity. Subsequently, these norms - being the operational minimum capacity -
are compared with current operational capacity data of each process resulting in the depiction
of capacity shortages. Together with on one hand specific operational wishes - provided by
the working group Ground - and on the other hand input of KLM’s 5 year demand forecast -
contributed by the working group Market - a Dashboard document is created. The latter
provides a bird eye view of capacity supply versus demand of all processes at AAS. The
demand data is determined by the market scenarios and the supply data is provided by each
of the operational process owners. On the basis of insight provided by the Dashboard the
ACP is created, containing the portfolio of projects. The content of the ACP is subsequently
shared with KLM to provide the opportunity to contribute comments. Consultation with
KLM during the initiation and definition phases is structured by making use of reference
groups and steering groups. Internal (AAS) and external (all external stakeholders) reference
groups are set up. Within the AAS Steering Group Large Projects all progress is reported to
the Director of BA Aviation. One week in advance of the meeting of this steering group,
three KLM representatives are invited and - separate from all other stakeholders - the projects
and their progress are discussed. KLM is given a preferred position as they are provided the
opportunity to make remarks and ask questions. KLM is informed by AAS regarding
developments and project progress on a continuous basis.
A.4 AIRCRAFT STAND ALLOCATION
Viewed from KLM
The processes of infrastructure planning and aircraft stand allocation are strongly connected
due to the fact that availability of infrastructure directly influences the flexibility at the
airport to position aircraft (see Figure 1-5). As such the infrastructure planning process and
the aircraft stand allocation process are consecutive steps in the value chain of both airline
and airport. Although the aircraft stand allocation process is in essence an operational
process, it has however significant impact on an airline’s performance. Both its operational
and long-term considerations are of strategic nature.
The long-term considerations involve studies to investigate the feasibility and costs to
develop a completely dedicated KLM/SkyTeam terminal and the currently being realized
transformation of the south side of the B pier to a dedicated KLM regional aircraft pier.
Based on the defined flight schedule for a season a new capacity planning is created for the
aircraft stands. This is a process that occurs twice a year. A one-day ahead planning is made
by KLM and sent to AAS. Within the one day ahead planning each flight is allocated at an
aircraft stand and its related gate (bus or pier gate). The one-day ahead plan itself is created
by a Gate Management System (GMS). This system consists of a rule base in which all
boundary conditions (security, border status, and physical limitations), aircraft handlers and
airlines’ requests are stated. The GMS retrieves the flight schedule data from the Central
Information System Schiphol (CISS), by which the airlines indicate their planned flights for
182 R.P. Perié

the coming day. The flights are subsequently allocated to a gate by the GMS following its
rule base. The result is a rough initial allocation plan of the planned flights for the next day.
This rough plan is thereafter continuously refined and updated until it enters the day of
operation. This continuous refinement is a necessity as it is a dynamic plan; i.e. until the day
of operation flights are added to the CISS, requests of airlines are added or changed in the
course etc.
The continuously updated and refined one day ahead plan will enter the day of operations as
the basis upon which the gates are coordinated as such. Inherent to the flight operations of
airlines, this operational plan is susceptible to frequent readjustments of the aircraft’s gate
allocation. These readjustments are due to many variables such as; difference in Scheduled
Time of Arrival/Departure (STA, STD) and Actual Time of Arrival/Departure (ATA, ATD),
aircraft technical problems, technical problems at the gate itself, daily network changes, other
aircraft types put into operations (registration changes) etc. The coordination on the day of
operation and the readjustment applied, result in an optimal gate plan carried into effect
according to the given circumstances. The planning on the day of operation is coordinated
from the air traffic control tower. The coordination also entails two other important aspects,
i.e.:
• the traffic control of towing activities consisting of push-backs and transport from/to
buffer positions or maintenance; and
• the coordination of the bus transport of passengers of flights that are handled remote
or non-Schengen passengers that arrive at a Schengen gate, which need to be
transported to a non-Schengen injection point.
During the day of operation close co-operation with personnel of KLM is maintained. A
flight coordinator (VluCo) of KLM is co-located within the traffic control tower to maintain
more effective and simpler communication lines.
KLM has been provided, to a certain extent, control of the gate planning within the Transfer
Central area. The control is carried out by submitting requests through the VluCo in the
tower, which are devised by KLM gate planners (VOP’ers) in the KLM hub control centre
(HCC). The VOP’ers make adjustments within the gate planning to optimize it according to
KLM operations, which can be influenced by disruptions in regular KLM operations all over
the world. The input for these external disruptions is obtained through the KLM operations
control centre (OCC). The requests for AAS for changes in the gate plan are only granted in
cases the current capacity permits such changes.
Viewed from AAS
Four levels can be identified within the Gate planning process, as illustrated in Figure A-3.
The first involves the strategic planning of the gate lay-out for the mid-long term (1-5 years
planning). This gate planning level has the objective to ensure optimal gate availability on a
longer term to be able to realize strategic goals. The availability is dependent upon:
• the necessary maintenance practices of the gates;
• the necessary mutation/developments of the gates to adapt to future changes in the
fleet composition in combination with the prognoses of the flight schedule (growth)
of the airlines;
R.P. Perié 183

• the airline specific wishes to change its aircraft handling model, which will impact
the utilization and thus availability of the gates.
Figure A-3: Gate Planning Process
The department involved within this cycle is AAS’ Capacity Management department, which
on the basis of the existing infrastructure, the Airport Capacity Plan (as part of the
infrastructural planning process) and the prognoses of the flight schedules (Schiphol total
file), set up a strategic plan in cooperation with KLM.
The next level is the tactical level which is characterized by a scope of less than a year in
which the so-called seasonal gate planning is made. The seasonal gate plan is a framework
that indicates the optimal seasonal division of operational gates between KLM & partners
and the other airlines. The seasonal planning acts as a blueprint on which the operational
planning of gates (one-day ahead and day of operation) is made. The seasonal division of
gates is characterized by two areas, namely the Transfer Central Area and the Common Use
area. The division is based upon the policy that AAS is focused at consolidating and
strengthening the Main Port function; reducing the visit costs through an efficient utilization
of assets of AAS and all parties/stakeholders involved. Key to this policy is that the hub-
carriers, being the largest providers of transfer passengers for AAS, are provided with the
opportunity to secure reliability of their transfer connections. Thus allocating flights with a
high number of transfer passengers to the central transfer area if feasible, in order to reduce
walking distances. The gate configuration within the Transfer Central Area makes close
allocation of flights of different status and aircraft type possible. This close allocation
reduces walking distances and thus increases the possibility to live up to short transfer
connections despite operational disturbances. Next to the latter, the distinction of the two
areas increases the recognizability of where certain airlines will be positioned, thus has a
positive effect upon the utilization of personnel and equipment. The recognizability results in
less transport of personnel and equipment between gates as the aircraft handlers are clustered,
positioned next to and after each other. Clustering of airlines and in particular aircraft
184 R.P. Perié

handlers near each other ensures that they are encouraged to work effectively and efficiently
due to the fact that they otherwise disadvantage themselves.
The Common Use area is used to allocate airlines that have little to no transfer passengers
(O&D traffic). The objective is such that it is attempted to maintain reasonable walking
distances for most passengers related to the check-in and reclaim area and the gate
position/allocation of the aircraft. An example of such a seasonal division between both areas
is shown in Figure A-4.
Figure A-4: Area Division Transfer Central vs. Common Use
The seasonal plan is created based upon:

• the available flight schedule scenarios of all airlines for the specific season;
• the available firm assets (gates, aircraft stands, etc) taking into account the non-
operable assets being under maintenance, thus the extent of both areas is determined
upon capacity planning (demand vs. available capacity “supply”);
• the experience with the currently operating seasonal planning and flight schedules;
• the prevailing boundary conditions such as security measures, border status
(Schengen/Non-Schengen, Europe/Non-Europe) involving the limitation of free
traffic of goods and passengers, and the physical limitations of the waiting area
capacity, gates and/or aircraft stands;
• the specific agreements with aircraft handlers and/or airlines such as, a request for a
preferred use of gates to allocate specific preferred flights at certain gates, and
preferred allocation of bus gates.
Per season, based on the Regulation Aircraft Stand Allocation Schiphol (RASAS) and the
slot files of the airlines, the busiest week of that season is selected. Accordingly to this week
a seasonal planning is made which acts as a basis upon which aircraft are allocated during
that specific season. The RASAS is created in cooperation with KLM, all remarks, comments
and requests are integrated as far as the boundary conditions of capacity management allow.
This seasonal planning is fine-tuned in cooperation with KLM. The agreements related to the
RASAS, being all remarks, comments and requests and the seasonal plan are created in
cooperation with KLM.
R.P. Perié 185

The operational level of gate planning process involves the creation of the one day ahead
plan and the gate coordination on the day of operation. The one day ahead plan is a gate
allocation plan for the next day, it is thus created one day in advance. The seasonal plan,
previously discussed, acts as a blueprint to set up a day allocation on the basis of the planned
airlines’ flight schedules (Scheduled Time of Arrival and Scheduled Time of Departure)
taking into account the currently applying physical boundary conditions and wishes/requests
of the airlines regarding operational preferences for the coming day. Both the seasonal plan
and the daily one day ahead plan for the coming day is made by the department of Apron
Planning and Control of AAS. Within the one day ahead planning each flight is allocated at
an aircraft stand and its related gate (bus or pier gate). The one day ahead plan itself is
created by means of a Gate Management System (GMS). This system consists of a rule base
in which all boundary conditions (Security, border status, and physical limitations) and
aircraft handlers and airlines’ requests and wishes are stated. The GMS retrieves the flight
schedule data from the Central Information System Schiphol (CISS), through which the
airlines indicate their planned flights for the coming day. The flights are subsequently
allocated at a gate by the GMS following its rule-base. The result is a rough initial allocation
plan of the planned flights for the next day. This rough plan is thereafter continuously refined
and updated until it enters the day of operation. This continuous refinement is a necessity as
it is characterized as being a dynamic plan; i.e. until the day of operation flights are added to
the CISS, wishes and requests of airlines are added or changed in the course and so on.
The continuously updated and refined one day ahead plan will enter the day of operations as
the basis upon which the gates are coordinated as such. Inherent to the flight operations of
airlines this operational plan is susceptible to frequent readjustments of the aircraft’s gate
allocation. These readjustments are due to many variables such as; difference in Scheduled
Time of Arrival/Departure (STA, STD) and Actual Time of Arrival/Departure (ATA, ATD) ,
aircraft technical problems, technical problems at the gate itself, daily network changes, other
aircraft types put into operations (registration changes), and so on. The coordination on the
day of operation and the readjustment applied result in an optimal Gate plan carried into
effect according to the given circumstances. The planning on the day of operation is
coordinated from the air traffic control tower. The coordination also entails two other
important aspects, first the traffic control of towing activities consisting of push-backs and
transport from/to buffer positions or maintenance hanger. Secondly, the coordination of the
bus transport of passengers of flights that are handled remote or non-Schengen passengers
that arrive at a Schengen gate, which need to be transported to a non-Schengen injection
point. During the day of operation, close cooperation with personnel of KLM exists. A flight
coordinator (VluCo) of KLM is co-located within the traffic control tower to have more
effective and simpler communication lines.
KLM has been given, to a certain extent, control of the gate planning within the Transfer
Central area. The control is carried out by submitting requests to shift within the gate
planning to optimize it according to their operations. These requests are granted in cases
where the current capacity permits such changes.
186 R.P. Perié

APPENDIX B ARTICLE LONG/SHORT/FINAL LIST
B.1 ARTICLE LONG LIST
Search Key
Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
Doc nr. Author, Year, Title
Yusuf Y., Gunasekaran A., Wu C. , 2006, Implementation of enterprise resource planning in

1
China
Liang H., Xue Y., 2004, Coping with ERP-related contextual issues in SMEs: a vendor's
2
perspective
Attaran M., 2004, Exploring the relationship between information technology and business
3
process reengineering
Wu L., 2003, Understanding senior management's behavior in promoting the strategic role of
4
IT in process reengineering: use of the theory of reasoned action
Dennis A.R., Carte T.A.,Kelly G.G. , 2003, Breaking the rules: success and failure in
5
groupware-supported business process reengineering
Silvestro R., Westley C., 2002, Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a case-
6
study analysis of BPR implementation
Grugulis I., Wilkinson A., 2002, Managing Culture at British Airways: Hype, Hope and
7
Reality
Changchien S.W., Shen H.Y., 2002, Supply chain reengineering using a core process analysis
8
matrix and object-oriented simulation
Dornan D.L., 2002, Asset management: remedy for addressing the fiscal challenges facing
9
highway infrastructure
Wu L., 2002, A model for implementing BPR based on strategic perspectives: an empirical
10
study
Ranganathan C., Dhaliwal J.S., 2001, A survey of business process reengineering practices in
11
Singapore
Heusinkveld S., Benders J., 2001, Surges and sediments: shaping the reception of
12
reengineering
13 Hipkin I.B., De Cock C., 2000, TQM and BPR: lessons for maintenance management
Nasierowski W., 2000, Technology and quality improvements in Mexican companies: some
14
international comparisons
15 Im I., El Sawy O.A., Hars A., 1999, Competence and impact of tools for BPR
Currie W.L., 1999, Revisiting management innovation and change programs: strategic vision
16
or tunnel vision?
Sutcliffe N., 1999, Leadership behavior and business process reengineering (BPR) outcomes:
17
An empirical analysis of 30 BPR projects
Aldowaisan T.A., Gaafar L.K., 1999, Business process reengineering: an approach for process
18
mapping
19 O'Neill P., Sohal A.S., 1999, Business Process Reengineering A review of recent literature
Dooley L., O'Sullivan D., 1999, Decision support system for the management of systems
20
change
21 Dey P.K., 1999, Process re-engineering for effective implementation of projects
Kallio J., Saarinen T., Salo S., Tinnila M., Vepsalainen A.P.J., 1999, Drivers and tracers of
22
business process changes
Drew S., 1999, Building Knowledge Management into Strategy: Making Sense of a New
23
Perspective
24 Kwahk K.Y., Kim Y.G., 1999, Supporting business process redesign using cognitive maps
25 Van Grembergen W., Van Belle J.L., 1999, Process integration through information
R.P. Perié 187

technology at the Generale de Banque of Belgium

Sarker S., Lee A.S., 1999, IT-enabled organizational transformation: a case study of BPR
26
failure at TELECO
Altinkemer K., Chaturvedi A., Kondareddy S., 1998, Business Process Reengineering and
27
Organizational Performance: An Exploration of Issues
28 Martinsons M.G., Hempel P.S., 1998, Chinese Business Process Re-engineering
Teng J.T.C., Fiedler K.D., Grover V., 1998, An exploratory study of the influence of the IS
29
function and organizational context on business process reengineering project initiatives
Newell S., Swan J., Robertson M., 1998, A cross-national comparison of the adoption of
30
business process reengineering: fashion-setting networks?
Yoon Y., Guimaraes T., Clevenson A., 1998, Exploring expert system success factors for
31
business process reengineering
32 Paper D., 1998, BPR: Creating the Conditions for Success
33 Kim K.H., Kim Y.G., 1998, Process reverse engineering for BPR: A form-based approach
34 Kettinger W.J., Teng J.T.C., 1998, Aligning BPR to strategy: a framework for analysis
Lu H.P., Yeh D.C., 1998, Enterprises' Perceptions on Business Process Re-engineering: a Path
35
Analytic Model
Loebbecke C., Jelassi T., 1997, Business process redesign at CompuNet--standardizing top-
36
quality service through IT
Delany M., 1997, Managing business processes; BPR and beyond : by Colin Armistead and
37
Philip Rowland (Book Review)
Peppard J., Fitzgerald D., 1997, The transfer of culturally-grounded management techniques:
38
The case of business reengineering in Germany
Grover V., Malhotra M.K., 1997, Business process reengineering: A tutorial on the concept,
39
evolution, method, technology and application
Halachmi A., Bovaird T., 1997, Process reengineering in the public sector: Learning some
40
private sector lessons
41 Martinsons M.G., Revenaugh D.L., 1997, Re-engineering is dead; Long live re-engineering
Kim H.W., Kim Y.G., 1997, Dynamic process modeling for BPR: A computerized simulation
42
approach
Belmiro T.R., Gardiner P.D., Simmons J.E.L., 1997, Business process re-engineering — A
43
discredited vocabulary?
Search Business and Alignment

Key
Zerbini F., Golfetto F., Gibbert M., 2007, Marketing of competence: Exploring the resource-
44
based content of value-for-customers through a case study analysis
Baraldi E., Brennan R., Harrison D., Tunisini A., Zolkiewski J., 2007, Strategic thinking and
45
the IMP approach: A comparative analysis
46 Gonzalez-Benito J. , 2007, A theory of purchasing’s contribution to business performance
Jaskiewicz P., Klein S. , 2007, The impact of goal alignment on board composition and board
47
size in family businesses
Guenzi P.,Troilo G. , 2007, The joint contribution of marketing and sales to the creation of
48
superior customer value
Garrett R.P., Covin J.G., 2007, A Model of Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Strategic
49
Adaptation Mechanism
Celuch K., Murphy G.B., Callaway S.K., 2007, More bang for your buck: Small firms and the
50
importance of aligned information technology capabilities and strategic flexibility
Van de Walle B., Rutkowski A.F., 2006, A fuzzy decision support system for IT Service
51
Continuity threat assessment
52 Day M.,Lichtenstein S. , 2006, Strategic supply management: The relationship between
188 R.P. Perié

supply management practices, strategic orientation and their impact on organizational

performance
53 Dickson D.R., Ford R.C., Upchurch R. , 2006, A case study in hotel organizational alignment
Srivannaboon S., Milosevic D.Z., 2006, A two-way influence between business strategy and
54
project management
Seggie S.H., Kim D., Tamer Cavusgil S., 2006, Do supply chain IT alignment and supply
55
chain interfirm system integration impact upon brand equity and firm performance?
Erevelles S., Stevenson T.H., 2006, Enhancing the business-to-business supply chain: Insights
56
from partitioning the supply-side
Byrd T.A., Lewis B.R., Bryan R.W., 2006, The leveraging influence of strategic alignment on
57
IT investment: An empirical examination
Drew S.A., Kelley P.C., Kendrick T., 2006, CLASS: Five elements of corporate governance
58
to manage strategic risk
59 Kearns G.S. , 2005, An electronic commerce strategic typology: insights from case studies
Beer M., Voelpel S.C., Leibold M., Tekie E.B. , 2005, Strategic Management as
60
Organizational Learning: Developing Fit and Alignment through a Disciplined Process
Sigala M., 2005, Integrating customer relationship management in hotel operations:
61
managerial and operational implications
62 Coughlan J, Lycett M., Macredie R.D., 2005, Understanding the business-IT relationship
Chenhall R.H., 2005, Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic
63
alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study
Peak D., Guynes C.S., Kroon V., 2005, Information Technology Alignment Planning--a case
64
study
Cao Q., Dowlatshahi S., 2005, The impact of alignment between virtual enterprise and
65
information technology on business performance in an agile manufacturing environment
Search Key
Collaboration and Factors
Chen M.C., Yang T., Li H.C. , 2007, Evaluating the supply chain performance of IT-based
66
inter-enterprise collaboration
Cameron I., Hare B., Davies R. , 2007, Fatal and major construction accidents: A comparison
67
between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain
68 Woolgar L. , 2007, New institutional policies for university-industry links in Japan
Arranz N., Fdez. de Arroyabe J.C. , 2007, Governance structures in R&D networks: An
69
analysis in the European context
Nieto M.J., Santamaria L. , 2007, The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the
70
novelty of product innovation
Butcher J., Jeffrey P. , 2007, A view from the coal face: UK research student perceptions of
71
successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects
Paulraj A., Lado A.A., Chen I.J. , 2007, Inter-organizational communication as a relational
72 competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier
relationships
Pereira C.S., Soares A.L. , 2007, Improving the quality of collaboration requirements for
73
information management through social networks analysis
Smaros J. , 2007, Forecasting collaboration in the European grocery sector: Observations from
74
a case study
Rawwas M.Y.A., Konishi K., Kamise S., Al-Khatib J. , 2007, Japanese distribution system:
75
The impact of newly designed collaborations on wholesalers' performance
Hall L.A., Bagchi-Sen S. , 2007, An analysis of firm-level innovation strategies in the US
76
biotechnology industry
77 Haeussler C. , 2007, Proactive versus reactive M&A activities in the biotechnology industry
Torkzadeh G., .Chang J.C.J., Hansen G.W. , 2006, Identifying issues in customer relationship
78
management at Merck-Medco
R.P. Perié 189

Benbunan-Fich R., Arbaugh J.B. , 2006, Separating the effects of knowledge construction and
79
group collaboration in learning outcomes of web-based courses
Lee J.D., Park C. , 2006, Research and development linkages in a national innovation system:
80
Factors affecting success and failure in Korea
Barnes T.A., Pashby I.R., Gibbons A.M. , 2006, Managing collaborative R&D projects
81
development of a practical management tool
Lakemond N., Berggren C. , 2006, Co-locating NPD? The need for combining project focus
82
and organizational integration
Artail H.A. , 2006, Application of KM measures to the impact of a specialized groupware
83
system on corporate productivity and operations
Fontana R., Geuna A., Matt M. , 2006, Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The
84
importance of searching, screening and signaling.
Rank C., Rank O., Wald A. , 2006, Integrated Versus Core-Periphery Structures in Regional
85
Biotechnology Networks
Jassawalla A.R., Sashittal H.C. , 2006, Collaboration in Cross-Functional Product Innovation
86
Teams
Hocevar S.P., Thomas G.F., Jansen E. , 2006, Building Collaborative Capacity: An Innovative
87
Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness
Wu F., Cavusgil S.T. , 2006, Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in
88
interfirm relationships
Lam P.K., Chin K.S. , 2005, Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict
89
management in collaborative new product development
Butcher J., Jeffrey P. , 2005, The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia
90
collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use for water treatment
Numprasertchai S., Igel B. , 2005, Managing knowledge through collaboration: multiple case
91
studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand
Yuksel A., Yuksel F. , 2005, Managing relations in a learning model for bringing destinations
92
in need of assistance into contact with good practice
93 Harrison J. , 2005, Shaping collaboration: Considering institutional culture
Chan F.T.S., Chung S.H. , 2005, Multi-criterion genetic optimization for due date assigned
94
distribution network problems
Iatrou K., Alamdari F. , 2005, The empirical analysis of the impact of alliances on airline
95
operations
Holweg M., Disney S., Holmstrom J., Smaros J. , 2005, Supply Chain Collaboration:: Making
96
Sense of the Strategy Continuum
Claycomb C., Iyer K., Germain R. , 2005, Predicting the level of B2B e-commerce in industrial
97
organizations
Hallikas J., Puumalainen K., Vesterinen T., Virolainen V.M. , 2005, Risk-based classification
98
of supplier relationships
Southern N.L. , 2005, Creating Cultures of Collaboration that Thrive on Diversity: A
99
Transformational Perspective on Building Collaborative Capital
100 Zhang X. , Sims H.P. , 2005, Leadership, Collaborative Capital, and Innovation
Inzelt A. , 2004, The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during
101
transition
Hemmert M. , 2004, The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition
102
performance of high-tech firms: survey results from Germany and Japan
Rog D., Boback N., Barton-Villagrana H., Marrone-Bennett P., Cardwell J., Hawdon J., Diaz
103 J., Jenkins P., Kridler J., Reischl T. , 2004, Sustaining collaborative: a cross-site analysis of
The National Funding Collaborative on Violence Prevention
Hall H., Graham D. , 2004, Creation and recreation: motivating collaboration to generate
104
knowledge capital in online communities
Tuominen M., Rajala A., Moller K. , 2004, Market-driving versus market-driven: Divergent
105
roles of market orientation in business relationships
Joia L.A. , 2004, Developing Government-to-Government enterprises in Brazil: a heuristic
106
model drawn from multiple case studies.
107 Chen I.J., Paulraj A. , 2004, Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
190 R.P. Perié

measurements
Search Key
Collaboration and Partnerships and Factors
Doc Author, Year, Title
nr.
108 Jackson L., Hansen J. , 2006, Creating collaborative partnerships: Building the framework
109 Vereecke A., Muylle S. , 2006, Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in
Europe
110 Furlan A., Romano P., Camuffo A. , 2006, Customer-supplier integration forms in the air-
conditioning industry
111 Myhr N., Spekman R.E. , 2005, Collaborative supply-chain partnerships built upon trust and
electronically mediated exchange
112 Thorne E.A., Wright G. , 2005, Developing strategic alliances in management learning
113 Ansari W.E., Phillips C.J., Hammick M. , 2001, Collaboration and partnerships: Developing the
evidence base
114 Huxham C., Vangen S. , 2000, Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of
collaboration
115 Couture M., Delong J., Wideman R. , 1999, What we have learned by building a collaborative
partnership
116 Littler D., Leverick F., Bruce M. , 1995, Factors affecting the process of collaborative product
development: A study of UK manufacturers of information and communications technology
products
117 Greves S.V. , 2006, Collaboration between departments of education and the disciplines: Making
it work
118 Wohlstetter P., Smith J., Malloy C.L. , 2005, Strategic alliances in action: Toward a theory of
evolution
119 Singh K., Mitchell W. , 2005, Growth dynamics: The bidirectional relationship between inter-firm
collaboration and business sales in entrant and incumbent alliances
120 Williamson E.A., Jordan M., Harrison D.K. , 2004, Information systems capabilities influencing
partnership integration within supply chain management - An empirical study
121 Cox J.R.W., Mann L., Samson D. , 1997, Benchmarking as a mixed metaphor: Disentangling
assumptions of competition and collaboration
122 El Ansari W. , 2005, Collaborative research partnerships with disadvantaged communities:
challenges and potential solutions
123 Nelson J.C., Rashid H., Galvin V.G., Essien J.D.K., Levine L.M. , 1999, Public/private partners:
Key factors in creating a strategic alliance for community health
124 Poncelet E.C. , 2001, A kiss here and a kiss there: Conflict and collaboration in environmental
partnerships
125 Horwath J., Morrison T. , 2007, Collaboration, integration and change in children's services:
Critical issues and key ingredients
126 Kapucu N. , 2006, Public-nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts of
emergencies
127 Gardner T.M. , 2005, Human resource alliances: Defining the construct and exploring the
antecedents
128 Erwin K., Blumenthal D.S., Chapel T., Allwood L.V. , 2004, Building an academic-community
partnership for increasing the representation of minorities in the health professions
129 Inzelt A. , 2004, The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition
130 Borthwick A.C., Stirling T., Nauman A.D., Cook D.L. , 2003, Achieving successful school-
university collaboration
131 Revilla E., Sarkis J., Modrego A. , 2003, Evaluating performance of public - private research
collaborations: A DEA analysis
132 Maitland R. , 2002, Creating successful partnerships in urban tourism destinations: The case of
Cambridge
133 Van Eyk H., Baum F. , 2002, Learning about interagency collaboration: Trialing collaborative
R.P. Perié 191

projects between hospitals and community health services

134 Zhu B.-L., Yu H.-B. , 2002, Research on up-down stream collaboration planning model based on
bargaining game
135 Stead G.B., Harrington T.F. , 2000, A process perspective of international research collaboration
136 Bresnen M., Marshall N. , 2000, Building partnerships: Case studies of client-contractor
collaboration in the UK construction industry
137 Drexler Jr. J.A., Larson E.W. , 2000, Partnering: Why project owner-contractor relationships
change
138 Brinkerhoff D.W. , 1999, Exploring state-civil society collaboration: Policy partnerships in
developing countries
139 Boeing W., Stawinoga P., Koppitz M., Schauer S. , 1994, An example of development-partnership
management
140 Kuwahara Y. , 1989, Extracting maximum benefit from an international R&D partnership - A case
study of a Japanese industrial laboratory
141 Williams-Barnard C.L., Bockenhauer B., O'Keefe Domaleski V., Eaton J.A. , 2006, Professional
Learning Partnerships: A Collaboration Between Education and Service
142 Bernier J., Rock M., Roy M., Bujold R., Potvin L. , 2006, Structuring an inter-sector research
partnership: A negotiated zone
143 Hubbell K., Burman M.E. , 2006, Factors related to successful collaboration in community-
campus partnerships
144 Rebernik M., Bradac B. , 2006, Cooperation and opportunistic behavior in transformational
outsourcing
145 Lee J.D., Park C. , 2006, Research and development linkages in a national innovation system:
Factors affecting success and failure in Korea
146 Nelson J.C., Rashid H., Galvin V.G., Essien J.D.K., Levine L.M. , 1999, Public/private partners -
Key factors in creating a strategic alliance for community health
147 Lee Y.S. , 1996, Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of
university-industry collaboration
148 Rebernik M., Bradac B., , Cooperation and opportunistic behavior in transformational outsourcing
149 Lee J.-D., Park C., , Research and development linkages in a national innovation system: Factors
affecting success and failure in Korea
150 Schensul S.L., Nastasi B.K., Verma R.K., , Community-based research in India: A case example
of international and transdisciplinary collaboration
151 Cohen R., Linker J.A., Stutts L., 2006, Working together: Lessons learned from school, family,
and community collaborations
152 Compagni A., Manderscheid R.W., 2006, A neuroscientist-consumer alliance to transform mental
health care
153 Brody S.D., Cash S.B., Dyke J., Thornton S., 2006, Motivations for the forestry industry to
participate in collaborative ecosystem management initiatives
154 Banach M., Zunz S., LaPointe N., 2006, Community collaboration: Effective partnerships with
steering committees
155 Rose B.L., Mansour M., Kohake K., 2005, Building a partnership to evaluate school-linked health
services: The Cincinnati School Health Demonstration Project
156 Kumaramangalam K., 2005, Does collaborating with academia improve industry science?:
Evidence from the UK biotechnology sector, 1988-2001
157 Hyland P., Beckett R., 2005, Engendering an innovative culture and maintaining operational
balance
158 El Ansari W., 2005, Collaborative research partnerships with disadvantaged communities:
Challenges and potential solutions
159 Legato M.J., 2005, A year of accreditation, collaboration, and setting standards: Landmarks for
the partnership and Gender Medicine
160 Hong B.A., Leventhal G., 2004, Partnerships with psychiatry and other clinical disciplines: A key
to psychology's success in U.S. medical schools
161 Gray B., 2004, Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration
162 Whiston S.C., 2004, Counseling Psychology and School Counseling: Can a Stronger Partnership
be Forged?
192 R.P. Perié

163 Alexander J.A., Weiner B.J., Metzger M.E., Shortell S.M., Bazzoli G.J., Hasnain-Wynia R.,
Sofaer S., Conrad D.A., 2003, Sustainability of Collaborative Capacity in Community Health
Partnerships
164 Bazzoli G.J., Casey E., Alexander J.A., Conrad D.A., Shortell S.M., Sofaer S., Hasnain-Wynia R.,
Zukoski A.P., 2003, Collaborative Initiatives: Where the Rubber Meets the Road in Community
Partnerships
165 Bradford N., 2003, Public-Private Partnership? Shifting Paradigms of Economic Governance in
Ontario
166 Davies J.S., 2003, Partnership versus regimes: Why regime theory cannot explain urban coalitions
in the UK
167 Virta S., 2002, Local security management: Policing through networks
168 Price J.G., Vega T.A., Wasden F.K., Isbell G.C., Cadwallader R.G., Fontenette L.A., Mc Rill
M.C., Shackelford E.J., 2002, Safeguarding Our Assets through Contractor Partnership
169 Harris M., Harris J., Hutchison R., Rochester C., 2002, Merger in the British voluntary sector: The
example of HIV/AIDS agencies
170 Young D.W., McCarthy S.M., Barrett D., Kenagy J.W., Pinakiewicz D.C., 2001, Beyond health
care cost containment: Creating collaborative arrangements among the stakeholders
171 Lombana Cesar A., Romig Alton D., Linton Jonathan D., 2000, Accelerating technology transfer
from Federal Laboratories to the private sector by increasing industrial R&D collaborations - a
new business model
172 Chaturvedi K.J., Rajan Y.S., 2000, New product development: challenges of globalization
173 Del Campo A.A., Sparks A., Hill R.C., Keller R.T., 1999, The transfer and commercialization of
university-developed medical imaging technology: Opportunities and problems
174 Stead G.B., Harrington T.F., 1999, A process perspective of international research collaboration
175 Plante C.S., Bendell J., 1999, The art of collaboration: Lessons from emerging environmental
business-NGO partnerships in Asia
176 Miller L.J., Hanft B.E., 1998, Building positive alliances: Partnerships with families as the
cornerstone of developmental assessment
177 Doan P.L., 1998, Institutionalizing household waste collection: The urban environmental
management project in CoÌ‚te d'Ivoire
178 Mulroy E.A., 1997, Building a Neighborhood Network: Inter-organizational Collaboration to
Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect
179 Lee Y.S., 1996, Technology transfer' and the research university: A search for the boundaries of
university-industry collaboration
180 Barrett A.P., 1995, Interactive EDI - it and commerce in the 21st century
181 Horwath J., Morrison, T., 2007, Collaboration , integration and change in children's services:
Critical issues and key ingredients
182 Lee J., Park C., 2006, Research and development linkages in a national innovation system: Factors
affecting success and failure in Korea
183 N. Arranz and J.C. Fdez. de Arroyabe, , 2006, Governance structures in R&D networks: An
analysis in the European context
184 Brody S.D., Cash S.B.,, Jennifer Dyke J., Thornton S. , 2006, Motivations for the forestry industry
to participate in collaborative ecosystem management initiatives
185 Schaub A., Altimier L., 2006, Tenants of Trust: Building Collaborative Work Relationships
186 Inzelt A., 2004, The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition
187 Carise D., Cornely W., Gurel O. , 2002, A successful researcher-practitioner collaboration in
substance abuse treatment
188 Benavente J., Pobocik R., Morris C., Hammer H., Zahalka C., Weiss S., 1996, Enhancing
Nutrition Education for a Diverse Limited resource Asian Pacific Islander Population Through
Community Collaboration
189 Fernandez A.P., , 1987, NGOs in South Asia: People's participation and partnership
190 Israel, BA (Israel, Barbara A.); Krieger, J., Vlahov, D. Ciske, S., Foley, M., Fortin, P., Guzman,
J.R., Lichtenstein, R., McGranaghan, R., Palermo, A.G., Tang, G. , 2006, Challenges and
facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: Lessons
learned from the Detroit
191 Rose, B.L., Mansour, M., Kohake, K., 2005, Building a partnership to evaluate school-linked
R.P. Perié 193

health services: The Cincinnati School Health Demonstration Project

192 Mentaverri, R., Wattel, A., Lemaire-Hurtel, A.S., Kamel, S., Blesius, A., Brazier, M., 2005,
Partnership between academic research and industry to study a new anti-osteoporotic drug
193 Andersson, H., Larsen, K., Lagerkvist, C.J., Andersson, C., Blad, F., Samuelsson, J., Skargren, P.,
2005, Farm cooperation to improve sustainability
194 Lambert, M.L., Delgado, R., Michaux, G., Vols, A., Speybroeck, N., Van der Stuyft, P., 2005,
Collaboration between private pharmacies and national tuberculosis programme: an intervention
in Bolivia
195 Zahner, S.J., 2005, Local public health system partnerships
196 Erwin, K., Blumenthal, D.S., Chapel, T., Allwood, L.V., 2004, Building an academic-community
partnership for increasing the representation of minorities in the health professions
197 Bradford, N., 2003, Public-private partnership? Shifting paradigms of economic governance in
Ontario
198 Bazzoli, G.J., Casey, E., Alexander, J.A., Conrad, D.A., Shortell, S.M., Sofaer, S., Hasnain-
Wynia, R., Zukoski, A.P., 2003, Collaborative initiatives: Where the rubber meets the road in
community partnerships
199 Borthwick, A.C., Stirling, T., Nauman, A.D., Cook, D.L., 2003, Achieving successful school-
university collaboration
200 Revilla, E., Sarkis, J., Modrego, A., 2003, Evaluating performance of public-private research
collaborations: A DEA analysis
201 Carise, D., Cornely, W., Gurel, O., 2002, A successful researcher-practitioner collaboration in
substance abuse treatment
202 Fairbrother, G., Kuttner, H., Miller, W., Hogan, R., McPhillips, H., Johnson, K.A., Alexander, R.,
2000, Findings for case studies of state and local immunization programs
203 Huxham, C., Vangen, S., 2000, Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of
collaboration
204 Stead, G.B., Harrington, T.F., 2000, A process perspective of international research collaboration
205 Stead, G.B., Harrington, T.F., 2000, A process perspective of international research collaboration
206 Mitchell, A.H., Castenell, L.A., Hendricks-Lee, M.S., Mooney, T., 2000, Balancing the politics of
two cultures: Cincinnati Initiative for Teacher Education and the Cincinnati Professional Practice
Schools partnership
207 Randall, J., Swenson, C.C., Henggeler, S.W., 1999, Neighborhood solutions for neighborhood
problems: An empirically based violence prevention collaboration
208 Orbovich, C., 1995, Case-studies of collaboration between family-planning agencies and managed
care organizations
209 Florence J.A., Goodrow B., Wachs J., Grover S., Olive K.E.,, 2007, Rural health professions
education at East Tennessee State University: Survey of graduates from the first decade of the
community partnership program
210 Minkler M., Vasquez V.B., Warner J.R., Steussey H., Facente S.,, 2006, Sowing the seeds for
sustainable change: A community-based participatory research partnership for health promotion in
Indiana, USA and its aftermath
211 Tsuchida E., Sakai H., Horinouchi H., Kobayashi K.,, 2006, Hemoglobin-vesicles as a transfusion
alternative
212 Ravanbakht C., Akan G., Hanshaw S., Allsbrook L.,, 2006, Linking planning and operations to
improve regional mobility and safety in Hampton roads, Virginia
213 Wohl M., Gruber M.,, 2006, Integrated materials services supplier for demanding and aesthetic
steel structures
214 Maton K.I., Perkins D.D., Saegert S.,, 2006, Community psychology at the crossroads: Prospects
for interdisciplinary research
215 Lavin J.H., Avery A., Whitehead S.M., Rees E., Parsons J., Bagnall T., Barth J.H., Ruxton
C.H.S.,, 2006, Feasibility and benefits of implementing a Slimming on Referral service in primary
care using a commercial weight management partner
216 Jarrott S.E., Gigliotti C.M., Smock S.A.,, 2006, Where do we stand? Testing the foundation of a
shared site intergenerational program
217 Reid R., Bruce D., Allstaff K., McLernon D.,, 2006, Validating the Readiness for
Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) in the postgraduate context: Are health care
194 R.P. Perié

professionals ready for IPL?

218 Lubell K.M., Vetter J.B.,, 2006, Suicide and youth violence prevention: The promise of an
integrated approach
219 Downing P., Baxter M.A., McCullough E.D.,, 2005, Developing a sustainable lunar economy:
Expanding the moon base beyond exploration
220 Milbourne L.,, 2005, Children, families and interagency work: Experiences of partnership work in
primary education settings
221 Cameron J.R., Holly R., Uberti C.W., Springer P.,, 2005, The west coast offshore vessel traffic
risk management project
222 Robinson K., Elliott S.J., Driedger S.M., Eyles J., O'Loughlin J., Riley B., Cameron R., Harvey
D.,, 2005, Using linking systems to build capacity and enhance dissemination in heart health
promotion: A Canadian multiple-case study
223 Islam M., Kantor J.,, 2005, The development of quality management accounting practices in
China
224 Evans J., Castle F., Cooper D., Glatter R., Woods P.A.,, 2005, Collaboration: The big new idea for
school improvement?
225 Vimpani G.,, 2005, Getting the mix right: Family, community and social policy interventions to
improve outcomes for young people at risk of substance misuse
226 Allen N.E.,, 2005, A multi-level analysis of community coordinating councils
227 Dessibourg C.-A.,, 2005, Mental deficiency and poly-handicap: new challenges [Déficience
mentale et poly-handicap: des nouveaux défis]
228 Hemsley-Brown J., 2004, Facilitating research utilization. A cross-sector review of research
evidence
229 Juszczak T., Kornatowska B., Michalak R., Buszko-Briggs M.,, 2004, The Ministerial Conference
on the Protection of Forests in Europe - Years of commitment to European forests
230 Gregory R.,, 2004, Assimilation and practical application of field data in Washtenaw County
Michigan
231 Taylor B.M., Pearson P.D.,, 2004, Research on learning to read-at school, at home, and in the
community
232 Busse V., Schnitzler J.,, 2004, Do it right!
233 Niezgoda A., Zmyslony P.,, 2003, Identifying determinants of development of rural tourist
destinations in Poland
234 Rao M.K.D.,, 2003, Perceptions of participating scientists on international R&D collaborations
235 Sanders M.G.,, 2003, Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice
236 Nicholas E.,, 2003, An Outcomes Focus in Carer Assessment and Review: Value and Challenge
237 Sanders M.G., Harvey A.,, 2002, Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership
for school-community collaboration
238 Valasek T.,, 2002, The agenda before NATO and Russia
239 Sanders M.G.,, 2002, The role of community in comprehensive school, family, and community
partnership programs
240 Calleson D.C., Seifer S.D., Maurana C.,, 2002, Forces affecting community involvement of
AHCs: Perspectives of institutional and faculty leaders
241 Appiah M.,, 2001, Co-partnership in forest management: The Gwira-Banso joint forest
management project in Ghana
242 Jacobs G.M., Head J.W., Forest S., Struck J., Pituch K., Jacobs G.A.,, 2001, Forming Partnerships
with Tribal Colleges to Meet Early Childhood Personnel Preparation Needs
243 Gilliom R.J., Hamilton P.A., Miller T.L.,, 2001, The National water-quality assessment program-
entering a new decade of investigations
244 St. Pierre T.L., Kaltreider D.L.,, 2001, Reflections on implementing a community agency-school
prevention program
245 Levin-Zamir D., Peterburg Y.,, 2001, Health literacy in health systems: Perspectives on patient
self-management in Israel
246 Mitchell A.H., Castenell Jr. L.A., Hendricks-Lee M.S., Mooney T.,, 2000, Balancing the politics
of two cultures: Cincinnati initiative for teacher education and the Cincinnati professional practice
schools partnership
247 Zweben J.E., Cohen J.B., Obert J., Vandersloot D., Marinelli-Casey P.,, 2000, Conducting trials in
R.P. Perié 195

community settings: The provider perspective

248 Scheuring S.E., Hanna S., D'Aquila-Lloyd E.,, 2000, Strengthening the safety net for adolescent
health: Partners in creating realities out of opportunity
249 Kaviani N., Stillwell Y.,, 2000, An evaluative study of clinical preceptorship
250 Castro G.A., Bouldin P.A., Farver D.W., Maugans L.A., Sanders L.C., Booker J.,, 1999, The
InterCon network: A program for education partnerships at the University of Texas-Houston
Health Science Center
251 Dobson S., Henderson L.,, 1998, A comparison of training approaches for support assistants using
the Hanen philosophy
252 Barton W.H., Watkins M., Jarjoura R.,, 1997, Youths and Communities: Toward Comprehensive
Strategies for Youth Development
253 Bogo M., Wells L., Abbey S., Bergman A., Chandler V., Embleton L., Guirgis S., Huot A.,
McNeill T., Prentice L.,, 1992, Advancing social work practice in the health field: a collaborative
research partnership.
254 Cowan D.T., Wilson-Barnett D.J., Norman I.J., Murrells T., , 2007, Measuring nursing
competence: Development of a self-assessment tool for general nurses across Europe
255 Lavin J.H., Avery A., Whitehead S.M., Rees E., Parsons J., Bagnall T., Barth J.H., Ruxton
C.H.S. , 2006, Feasibility and benefits of implementing a Slimming on Referral service in primary
256 Young H.M., Swanson E.A, Richards K., Wallhagen M.I., Archbold P., Spool M.,Flaherty-Robb
M. , 2006, Extending influence in gerontological nursing through partnerships: Experiences from
the John A. Hartford Foundation Centers of Geriatric Nursing Excellence
257 Lubell K.M., Vetter J.B. , 2006, Suicide and youth violence prevention: The promise of an
integrated approach
258 Teasdale D., 2005, Exploring nurse education in South India: Implications for success during
post-registration neonatal education
259 Kes McCormick K., Kaberger T. , 2005, Exploring a pioneering bio-energy system: The case of
Enkoping in Sweden
260 Fairbrother G., Kuttner H., Miller W., Hogan R., McPhillips H., Johnson K.A., Alexander E.R.,
2000, Findings from case studies of state and local immunization programs
261 Sherwood S., Uphoff N. , 2000, Soil health: research, practice and policy for a more regenerative
agriculture
262 Kaviani N., Stillwell Y. , 2000, An evaluative study of clinical preceptorship
263 Fleisher L., Woodworth M., Morra M., Baum S., Darrow S., Davis S., Slevin-Perocchia R.,
Stengle W., Ward J., 1998, Balancing Research and Service: The Experience of the Cancer
Information Service
264 Chiejina S. N., Fakae B.B, , 1996, Applications and transfer of information technology in
veterinary research in developing countries: the Nigerian experience
265 Shaeffer S., 1992, Collaborating for educational change: The role of parents and the community in
school improvement
266 Segal S.J. , 1987, The development of modern contraceptive technology
267 Florence, J.A., Goodrow, B., Wachs, J., Grover, S., Olive, K.E., 2007, Rural health professions
education at East Tennessee State University: Survey of graduates from the first decade of the
Community Partnership Program
268 Rowe, L., Rechel, B., 2006, Fighting tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in Northeast Europe: sustainable
collaboration or political rhetoric?
269 Minkler, M., Vasquez, V.B., Warner, J.R., Steussey, H., Facente, S., 2006, Sowing the seeds for
sustainable change: a community-based participatory research partnership for health promotion in
Indiana, USA and its aftermath
270 Tsuchida, E., Sakai, H., Horinouchi, H., Kobayashi, K., 2006, Hemoglobin-vesicles as a
transfusion alternative
271 Lavin, J.H., Avery, A., Whitehead, S.M., Rees, E., Parsons, J., Bagnall, T., Barth, J.H., Ruxton,
C.H.S., 2006, Feasibility and benefits of implementing a Slimming on Referral service in primary
272 Ojala, M., Hallikas, J., 2006, Investment decision-making in supplier networks: Management of
risk
196 R.P. Perié

273 Maung, M., Kluge, H., Aye, T., Maung, W., Noe, P., Zaw, M., Jost, S.P., Uplekar, M., Lonnroth,
K., 2006, Private GPs contribute to TB control in Myanmar: evaluation of a PPM initiative in
Mandalay Division
274 Stone, A., Usher, D., Marklin, R., Seeley, P., Yager, J.W.,, 2006, Case study for underground
workers at an electric utility: How a research institution, university, and industry collaboration
improved occupational health through ergonomics
275 Reid, R., Bruce, D. Allstaff, K., McLernon, D, 2006, Validating the Readiness for Inter-
professional Learning Scale (RIPLS) in the postgraduate context: are health care professionals
ready for IPL?
276 Saba, G.W., Wong, S.T., Schillinger, D., Fernandez, A., Somkin, C.P., Wilson, C.C., Grumbach,
K., 2006, Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care
277 Harris, M.F., Hobbs, C., Davies, G.P., Simpson, S., Bernard, D., Stubbs, A., 2005,
Implementation of a SNAP intervention in two divisions of general practice: a feasibility study
278 Milbourne, L., 2005, Children, families and inter-agency work: experiences of partnership work
in primary education settings
279 Shearer, D.L., Gyaben, S.L., Gallagher, K.M., Klerman, L.V., 2005, Selecting, implementing, and
evaluating teen pregnancy prevention interventions: Lessons from the CDC's Community
Coalition Partnership Programs for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy
280 Vimpani, G., 2005, Getting the mix right: family, community and social policy interventions to
improve outcomes for young people at risk of substance misuse
281 Abernethy, A.D., Magat, M.M., Houston, T.R., 2005, Recruiting African American men for
cancer screening studies: Applying a culturally based model
282 Chen, Y.Y., McDonald, D. Cheng, C., Magnowski, B., Durand, J., Zochodne, D.W., 2005, Axon
and Schwann cell partnership during nerve regrowth
283 Raza, M., 2005, Collaborative healthcare research: Some ethical considerations
284 Evans, J., Castle, F.., Cooper, D., Glatter, R., Woods, P.A., 2005, Collaboration: the big new idea
for school improvement?
285 Padgett, S.M., Kinabrew, C., Kimbrell, J., Nicola, R.M., 2005, Turning point and public health
institutes: Vehicles for systems change
286 Prince, M., Graham, N., Brodaty, H., Rimmer, E., Varghese, M., Chiu, H., Acosta, D., Scazufca,
M., 2004, Alzheimer disease International's 10/66 Dementia Research Group - One model for
action research in developing countries
287 Alexander, J.A., Weiner, B.J., Metzger, M.E., Shortell, S.M., Bazzoli, G.J., Hasnain-Wynia, R.,
Sofaer, S., Conrad, D.A., 2003, Sustainability of collaborative capacity in community health
partnerships
288 Ranson, M.K., 2003, Community-based health insurance schemes in India: A review
289 Jacobs, G.M., Head, J.W., Forest, S., Struck, J., Pituch, K., Jacobs, G.A., 2001, Forming
partnerships with tribal colleges to meet early childhood personnel preparation needs
290 Nicholas, E., 2003, An outcomes focus in carer assessment and review: Value and challenge
291 Reed, P.S., Foley, K.L., Hatch, J. Mutran, E.J., 2003, Recruitment of older African Americans for
survey research: A process evaluation of the community and church-based strategy in the Durham
Elders Project
292 Metrey, R.E., Truver, S.C., Whitman, E.C., Wright, M.A., 2002, Assuring a sea vehicles science
and technology base for transforming the 21st-century Navy
293 Tabi, M.M., 2002, Community perspective on a model to reduce teenage pregnancy
294 Harris, M., Harris, J., Hutchison, R., Rochester, C., 2002, Merger in the British voluntary sector:
The example of HIV/AIDS agencies
295 Virta, S., 2002, Local security management - Policing through networks
296 Perera, F.P., Illman, S.M., Kinney, P.L., Whyatt, R.M., Kelvin, E.A., Shepard, P., Evans, D.,
Fullilove, M., Ford, J., Miller, R.L., Mayer, I.H., Rauh, V.A., 2002, The challenge of preventing
environmentally related disease in young children: Community-based research in New York City
297 Calleson, D.C., Seifer, S.D., Maurana, C., 2002, Forces affecting community involvement of
AHCs: Perspectives of institutional and faculty leaders
298 Sanders, M.G., 2001, The role of "community" in comprehensive school, family, and community
partnership programs
299 MacKinnon, L., Apentiik, C., Robinson, M.P., 2001, Revisiting traditional land use and
R.P. Perié 197

occupancy studies: Relevance and implications for resource management in Alberta

300 Maria-Engler, S.S., Mares-Guia, M., Correa, M.L.C., Oliveira, E.M.C., Aita, C.A.M., Krogh, K.,
Genzini, T., Miranda, M.P., Ribeiro, M., Vilela, L., Noronha, I.L., Eliaschewitz, F.G., Sogayar,
M.C., 2001, Microencapsulation and tissue engineering as an alternative treatment of diabetes
301 Todd, A.L., Frommer, M.S., Bailey, S., Daniels, J.L., 2000, Collecting and using Aboriginal
health information in New South Wales
302 Zweben, J.E., Cohen, J.B., Obert, J., Vandersloot, D., Marinelli-Casey, P., 2000, Conducting trials
in community settings: The provider perspective
303 Kaviani, N., Stillwell, Y., 2000, An evaluative study of clinical preceptorship
304 Sullinger, H., Ostmoe, P.M., 1998, An education-service partnership: analysis of the development
of a satellite baccalaureate nursing program.
305 Fleisher, L., Woodworth, M., Morra, M., Baum, S., Darrow, S., Davis, S., Slevin-Perocchia, R.,
Stengle, W., Ward, J., 1998, Balancing research and service: The experience of the cancer
information service
306 Powell, D.S., Batsche, C.J., Ferro, J., Fox, L., Dunlap, G., 1997, A strength-based approach in
support of multi-risk families: Principles and issues
307 Hill, M.N., Becker, D.M., 1995, Roles of nurses and health workers in cardiovascular health
promotion
308 Waddock, S.A., 1993, Lessons from the national-alliance-of-business compact project - Business
and public - Education reform
B.2 ARTICLE SHORT LIST
Inter-rater reliability 100%
Doc
Author, Year, Title, Journal
nr.
Barnes T.A., Pashby I.R., Gibbons A.M. , 2006, Managing collaborative R&D projects
81
development of a practical management tool, International Journal of Project Management
Wu F., Cavusgil S.T. , 2006, Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value
88
creation in interfirm relationships, Journal of Business Research
89 management in collaborative new product development, Industrial Marketing
Management
Numprasertchai S., Igel B. , 2005, Managing knowledge through collaboration: multiple
91
case studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand, Technovation
Jackson L., Hansen J. , 2006, Creating collaborative partnerships: Building the framework,
108
Reference services review
Vereecke A., Muylle S. , 2006, Performance improvement through supply chain
109
collaboration in Europe, International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Furlan A., Romano P., Camuffo A. , 2006, Customer-supplier integration forms in the air-
110
conditioning industry, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Myhr N., Spekman R.E. , 2005, Collaborative supply-chain partnerships built upon trust
111
and electronically mediated exchange, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Thorne E.A., Wright G. , 2005, Developing strategic alliances in management learning,
112
Journal of European Industrial Training
Ansari W.E., Phillips C.J., Hammick M. , 2001, Collaboration and partnerships:
N/A 113
Developing the evidence base, Health & Social Care in the Community
Huxham C., Vangen S. , 2000, Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of
114
collaboration, Human Relations
Couture M., Delong J., Wideman R. , 1999, What we have learned by building a
115
collaborative partnership, International Electronic Journal For Leadership in Learning
198 R.P. Perié

Inter rater reliability 75%
Doc
nr.
Yusuf Y., Gunasekaran A., Wu C. , 2006, Implementation of enterprise resource planning

N/A 1
in China, Technovation
Silvestro R., Westley C. , 2002, Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a
N/A 6
case-study analysis of BPR implementation, Omega
Grugulis I., Wilkinson A. , 2002, Managing Culture at British Airways: Hype, Hope and
N/A 7
Reality, Long Range Planning
Aldowaisan T.A., Gaafar L.K. , 1999, Business process reengineering: an approach for
N/A 18
process mapping, Omega
Sarker S., Lee A.S. , 1999, IT-enabled organizational transformation: a case study of BPR
N/A 26
failure at TELECO, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems
N/A 32 Paper D. , 1998, BPR: Creating the Conditions for Success, Long Range Planning
Kettinger W.J., Teng J.T.C. , 1998, Aligning BPR to strategy: a framework for analysis,
N/A 34
Long Range Planning
Grover V., Malhotra M.K. , 1997, Business process reengineering: A tutorial on the
N/A 39 concept, evolution, method, technology and application, Journal of Operations
Management
Garrett R.P., Covin J.G. , 2007, A Model of Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Strategic
N/A 49
Adaptation Mechanism, Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth
60 Organizational Learning: Developing Fit and Alignment through a Disciplined Process,
Long Range Planning
Chen M.C., Yang T., Li H.C. , 2007, Evaluating the supply chain performance of IT-based
66
inter-enterprise collaboration, Information & Management
73 information management through social networks analysis, International Journal of
Information Management
Smaros J. , 2007, Forecasting collaboration in the European grocery sector: Observations
74
from a case study, Journal of Operations Management
Hocevar S.P., Thomas G.F., Jansen E. , 2006, Building Collaborative Capacity: An
N/A 87 Innovative Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness, Advances in Interdisciplinary
Studies of Work Teams
Holweg M., Disney S., Holmstrom J., Smaros J. , 2005, Supply Chain Collaboration::
96
Making Sense of the Strategy Continuum, European Management Journal
Southern N.L. , 2005, Creating Cultures of Collaboration that Thrive on Diversity: A
N/A 99 Transformational Perspective on Building Collaborative Capital, Advances in
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams
Zhang X. , Sims H.P. , 2005, Leadership, Collaborative Capital, and Innovation, Advances
N/A 100
in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams
Joia L.A. , 2004, Developing Government-to-Government enterprises in Brazil: a heuristic
106
model drawn from multiple case studies International Journal of Information Management
Littler D., Leverick F., Bruce M. , 1995, Factors affecting the process of collaborative
116 product development: A study of UK manufacturers of information and communications
technology products, Journal of Product Innovation Management
Greves S.V. , 2006, Collaboration between departments of education and the disciplines:
117
Making it work,
Wohlstetter P., Smith J., Malloy C.L. , 2005, Strategic alliances in action: Toward a theory
118
of evolution, The Policy Studies Journal,
R.P. Perié 199

Singh K., Mitchell W. , 2005, Growth dynamics: The bidirectional relationship between
119 inter-firm collaboration and business sales in entrant and incumbent alliances, Strategic
Management Journal
Williamson E.A., Jordan M., Harrison D.K. , 2004, Information systems capabilities
N/A 120
influencing partnership integration within supply chain management - An empirical study,
Cox J.R.W., Mann L., Samson D. , 1997, Benchmarking as a mixed metaphor:
121 Disentangling assumptions of competition and collaboration, Journal of Management
Studies
El Ansari W. , 2005, Collaborative research partnerships with disadvantaged communities:
122
challenges and potential solutions, Public Health
Nelson J.C., Rashid H., Galvin V.G., Essien J.D.K., Levine L.M. , 1999, Public/private
N/A 123 partners: Key factors in creating a strategic alliance for community health, American
Journal of Preventive Medicine
Poncelet E.C. , 2001, A kiss here and a kiss there: Conflict and collaboration in
124
environmental partnerships, Environmental Management
Inter rater reliability 50 %
Doc
nr.
Dennis A.R., Carte T.A.,Kelly G.G. , 2003, Breaking the rules: success and failure in
N/A 5
groupware-supported business process reengineering, Decision Support Systems
Changchien S.W., Shen H.Y. , 2002, Supply chain reengineering using a core process
N/A 8
analysis matrix and object-oriented simulation, Information & Management
Wu L. , 2002, A model for implementing BPR based on strategic perspectives: an
N/A 10
empirical study, Information & Management
Ranganathan C., Dhaliwal J.S. , 2001, A survey of business process reengineering
N/A 11
practices in Singapore, Information & Management
Im I., El Sawy O.A., Hars A. , 1999, Competence and impact of tools for BPR,
N/A 15
Information & Management
Sutcliffe N. , 1999, Leadership behavior and business process reengineering (BPR)
N/A 17
outcomes: An empirical analysis of 30 BPR projects, Information & Management
O'Neill P., Sohal A.S. , 1999, Business Process Reengineering A review of recent
N/A 19
literature, Technovation
Dooley L., O'Sullivan D. , 1999, Decision support system for the management of systems
N/A 20
change, Technovation
Kallio J., Saarinen T., Salo S., Tinnila M., Vepsalainen A.P.J. , 1999, Drivers and tracers
N/A 22
of business process changes, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems
Peppard J., Fitzgerald D. , 1997, The transfer of culturally-grounded management
N/A 38 techniques: The case of business reengineering in Germany, European Management
Journal
Zerbini F., Golfetto F., Gibbert M. , 2007, Marketing of competence: Exploring the
44 resource-based content of value-for-customers through a case study analysis, Industrial
Marketing Management
Baraldi E., Brennan R., Harrison D., Tunisini A., Zolkiewski J. , 2007, Strategic thinking
45
and the IMP approach: A comparative analysis, Industrial Marketing Management
Dickson D.R., Ford R.C., Upchurch R. , 2006, A case study in hotel organizational
53
alignment, International Journal of Hospitality Management
Erevelles S., Stevenson T.H. , 2006, Enhancing the business-to-business supply chain:
56
Insights from partitioning the supply-side, Industrial Marketing Management
Drew S.A., Kelley P.C., Kendrick T. , 2006, CLASS: Five elements of corporate
58
governance to manage strategic risk, Business Horizons
Peak D., Guynes C.S., Kroon V. , 2005, Information Technology Alignment Planning--a
64
case study, Information & Management
200 R.P. Perié

70
novelty of product innovation, Technovation
Butcher J., Jeffrey P. , 2007, A view from the coal face: UK research student perceptions
71
of successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects, Research Policy
relationships, Journal of Operations Management
Rawwas M.Y.A., Konishi K., Kamise S., Al-Khatib J. , 2007, Japanese distribution
75 system: The impact of newly designed collaborations on wholesalers' performance,
Industrial Marketing Management
Torkzadeh G., .Chang J.C.J., Hansen G.W. , 2006, Identifying issues in customer
78
relationship management at Merck-Medco, Decision Support Systems
Jassawalla A.R., Sashittal H.C. , 2006, Collaboration in Cross-Functional Product
N/A 86
Innovation Teams, Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams
Yuksel A., Yuksel F. , 2005, Managing relations in a learning model for bringing
92
destinations in need of assistance into contact with good practice, Tourism Management
Harrison J. , 2005, Shaping collaboration: Considering institutional culture, Museum
93
Management and Curatorship
95
operations, Journal of Air Transport Management
104 knowledge capital in online communities, International Journal of Information
Management
Chen I.J., Paulraj A. , 2004, Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs
107
and measurements, Journal of Operations Management
Horwath J., Morrison T. , 2007, Collaboration, integration and change in children's
125
services: Critical issues and key ingredients, Child Abuse & Neglect
Kapucu N. , 2006, Public-nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts
126
of emergencies, Public Administration Review
Gardner T.M. , 2005, Human resource alliances: Defining the construct and exploring the
N/A 127
antecedents,
Erwin K., Blumenthal D.S., Chapel T., Allwood L.V. , 2004, Building an academic-
N/A 128 community partnership for increasing the representation of minorities in the health
professions,
Inzelt A. , 2004, The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during
129
transition, Research Policy
Borthwick A.C., Stirling T., Nauman A.D., Cook D.L. , 2003, Achieving successful
N/A 130
school-university collaboration,
Revilla E., Sarkis J., Modrego A. , 2003, Evaluating performance of public - private
131
research collaborations: A DEA analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society
Maitland R. , 2002, Creating successful partnerships in urban tourism destinations: The
N/A 132
case of Cambridge,
Van Eyk H., Baum F. , 2002, Learning about interagency collaboration: Trialing
N/A 133
collaborative projects between hospitals and community health services,
Zhu B.-L., Yu H.-B. , 2002, Research on up-down stream collaboration planning model
N/A 134
based on bargaining game,
Stead G.B., Harrington T.F. , 2000, A process perspective of international research
N/A 135
collaboration,
Bresnen M., Marshall N. , 2000, Building partnerships: Case studies of client-contractor
136 collaboration in the UK construction industry, Construction Management and
Economics
Drexler Jr. J.A., Larson E.W. , 2000, Partnering: Why project owner-contractor
137
relationships change, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Brinkerhoff D.W. , 1999, Exploring state-civil society collaboration: Policy partnerships in
N/A 138
developing countries,
R.P. Perié 201

Boeing W., Stawinoga P., Koppitz M., Schauer S. , 1994, An example of development-
N/A 139
partnership management,
Kuwahara Y. , 1989, Extracting maximum benefit from an international R&D partnership
N/A 140
- A case study of a Japanese industrial laboratory,
Williams-Barnard C.L., Bockenhauer B., O'Keefe Domaleski V., Eaton J.A. , 2006,
141 Professional Learning Partnerships: A Collaboration Between Education and Service,
Journal of Professional Nursing
Bernier J., Rock M., Roy M., Bujold R., Potvin L. , 2006, Structuring an inter-sector
142
research partnership: A negotiated zone, Sozial-und Praventivmedizin
Hubbell K., Burman M.E. , 2006, Factors related to successful collaboration in
N/A 143
community-campus partnerships, Journal of Nursing Education
Rebernik M., Bradac B. , 2006, Cooperation and opportunistic behavior in
144
transformational outsourcing, Kybernetes
Lee J.D., Park C. , 2006, Research and development linkages in a national innovation
145
system: Factors affecting success and failure in Korea, Technovation
Nelson J.C., Rashid H., Galvin V.G., Essien J.D.K., Levine L.M. , 1999, Public/private
N/A 146 partners - Key factors in creating a strategic alliance for community health, American
Journal of Preventive Medicine
Lee Y.S. , 1996, Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the
147
boundaries of university-industry collaboration, Research Policy
Note: N/A = Not Applicable
B.3 ARTICLE FINAL LIST
Doc
nr.
Barnes T.A., Pashby I.R., Gibbons A.M., 2006, Managing collaborative R&D projects
81*
development of a practical management tool, International Journal of Project Management
Wu F., Cavusgil S.T., 2006, Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation
88*
in interfirm relationships, Journal of Business Research
89* management in collaborative new product development, Industrial Marketing
Management
Numprasertchai S., Igel B. , 2005, Managing knowledge through collaboration: multiple case
91
studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand, Technovation
Jackson L., Hansen J. , 2006, Creating collaborative partnerships: Building the framework,
108
Reference services review
Vereecke A., Muylle S. , 2006, Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in
109
Europe, International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Furlan A., Romano P., Camuffo A. , 2006, Customer-supplier integration forms in the air-
110
conditioning industry, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Myhr N., Spekman R.E. , 2005, Collaborative supply-chain partnerships built upon trust and
111
electronically mediated exchange, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Thorne E.A., Wright G. , 2005, Developing strategic alliances in management learning, Journal
112
of European Industrial Training
Huxham C., Vangen S. , 2000, Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of
114
collaboration, Human Relations
115 Couture M., Delong J., Wideman R. , 1999, What we have learned by building a collaborative
202 R.P. Perié

partnership, International Electronic Journal For Leadership in Learning
Doc
nr.
60 Organizational Learning: Developing Fit and Alignment through a Disciplined Process,
Long Range Planning
Chen M.C., Yang T., Li H.C. , 2007, Evaluating the supply chain performance of IT-based inter-
66
enterprise collaboration, Information & Management
73 information management through social networks analysis, International Journal of Information
Management
Smaros J. , 2007, Forecasting collaboration in the European grocery sector: Observations from a
74
case study, Journal of Operations Management
Holweg M., Disney S., Holmstrom J., Smaros J. , 2005, Supply Chain Collaboration:: Making
96
Sense of the Strategy Continuum, European Management Journal
Joia L.A. , 2004, Developing Government-to-Government enterprises in Brazil: a heuristic model
106
drawn from multiple case studie, International Journal of Information Management
Littler D., Leverick F., Bruce M. , 1995, Factors affecting the process of collaborative
116* product development: A study of UK manufacturers of information and communications
technology products, Journal of Product Innovation Management
Greves S.V. , 2006, Collaboration between departments of education and the disciplines: Making
117
it work,
Wohlstetter P., Smith J., Malloy C.L. , 2005, Strategic alliances in action: Toward a theory of
118
evolution, The Policy Studies Journal,
Singh K., Mitchell W. , 2005, Growth dynamics: The bidirectional relationship between interfirm
119 collaboration and business sales in entrant and incumbent alliances, Strategic Management
Journal
Cox J.R.W., Mann L., Samson D. , 1997, Benchmarking as a mixed metaphor: Disentangling
121
assumptions of competition and collaboration, Journal of Management Studies
El Ansari W. , 2005, Collaborative research partnerships with disadvantaged communities:
122
challenges and potential solutions, Public Health
Poncelet E.C. , 2001, A kiss here and a kiss there: Conflict and collaboration in environmental
124
partnerships, Environmental Management
Inter-rater reliability 50 %
Doc
nr.
Zerbini F., Golfetto F., Gibbert M. , 2007, Marketing of competence: Exploring the resource-
44 based content of value-for-customers through a case study analysis, Industrial Marketing
Management
Baraldi E., Brennan R., Harrison D., Tunisini A., Zolkiewski J. , 2007, Strategic thinking and the
45
IMP approach: A comparative analysis, Industrial Marketing Management
Dickson D.R., Ford R.C., Upchurch R. , 2006, A case study in hotel organizational alignment,
53
International Journal of Hospitality Management
Erevelles S., Stevenson T.H. , 2006, Enhancing the business-to-business supply chain: Insights
56
from partitioning the supply-side, Industrial Marketing Management
Drew S.A., Kelley P.C., Kendrick T. , 2006, CLASS: Five elements of corporate governance to
58
manage strategic risk, Business Horizons
64 Peak D., Guynes C.S., Kroon V. , 2005, Information Technology Alignment Planning--a case
R.P. Perié 203

study, Information & Management

70
novelty of product innovation, Technovation
Butcher J., Jeffrey P. , 2007, A view from the coal face: UK research student perceptions of
71
successful and unsuccessful collaborative projects, Research Policy
relationships, Journal of Operations Management
Rawwas M.Y.A., Konishi K., Kamise S., Al-Khatib J. , 2007, Japanese distribution system: The
75 impact of newly designed collaborations on wholesalers' performance, Industrial Marketing
Management
Torkzadeh G., .Chang J.C.J., Hansen G.W. , 2006, Identifying issues in customer relationship
78
management at Merck-Medco, Decision Support Systems
Yuksel A., Yuksel F. , 2005, Managing relations in a learning model for bringing destinations in
92
need of assistance into contact with good practice, Tourism Management
Harrison J. , 2005, Shaping collaboration: Considering institutional culture, Museum
93
Management and Curatorship
95
operations, Journal of Air Transport Management
104
knowledge capital in online communities, International Journal of Information Management
Chen I.J., Paulraj A. , 2004, Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
107
measurements, Journal of Operations Management
Horwath J., Morrison T. , 2007, Collaboration, integration and change in children's services:
125
Critical issues and key ingredients, Child Abuse & Neglect
Kapucu N. , 2006, Public-nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts of
126
emergencies, Public Administration Review
Inzelt A. , 2004, The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition,
129
Research Policy
Revilla E., Sarkis J., Modrego A. , 2003, Evaluating performance of public - private research
131
collaborations: A DEA analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society
Bresnen M., Marshall N. , 2000, Building partnerships: Case studies of client-contractor
136
collaboration in the UK construction industry, Construction Management and Economics
Drexler Jr. J.A., Larson E.W. , 2000, Partnering: Why project owner-contractor relationships
137
change, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Williams-Barnard C.L., Bockenhauer B., O'Keefe Domaleski V., Eaton J.A. , 2006, Professional
141 Learning Partnerships: A Collaboration Between Education and Service, Journal of Professional
Nursing
Bernier J., Rock M., Roy M., Bujold R., Potvin L. , 2006, Structuring an inter-sector research
142
partnership: A negotiated zone, Sozial-und Praventivmedizin
Rebernik M., Bradac B. , 2006, Cooperation and opportunistic behaviour in transformational
144
outsourcing, Kybernetes
Lee J.D., Park C. , 2006, Research and development linkages in a national innovation system:
145
Factors affecting success and failure in Korea, Technovation
Lee Y.S. , 1996, Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of
147
university-industry collaboration, Research Policy
Note: Documents in bold type are, after full text analysis, considered to be of great value, and are thus key
documents for the literature research with respect to prerequisite factors for successful alignment.
204 R.P. Perié

APPENDIX C CONSTRUCT DEFINITIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS
C.1 CONSTRUCT DEFINITIONS
Construct Dictionary Search Definitions

A person who takes part with another or others in doing
something; an associate, a colleague; A person who is
Partner Selection partner
associated with another or others in the carrying on of a
business with shared risks and profits
select Choose or pick out in preference to another or others
Competence Fit competence Power, ability, capacity, (to do, for a task etc.)
competent Having adequate skill, properly qualified, effective
The arrangement and mutual relation of the constituent
Structure Fit structure
parts of a whole; composition, make-up, form
The distinctive customs, achievements, products, outlook,
Culture Fit culture
etc., of a society or group
Social Bonding bond A uniting or cementing force or influence; adhesion, union
Of or pertaining to the mutual relationships of human beings
or of classes of human beings; connected with the functions
social
and structures necessary to membership of a group or
society
Faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, veracity, etc., of
Trust trust a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a statement etc.
without examination
Dependency dependency = dependence
The relation of having existence hanging upon, or
conditioned by, the existence of something else; the fact of
dependence depending on another thing or person;
The condition of a dependent; inability to do without
someone or something; subjection, subordination
Communication communication The science and practice of transmitting information
Cooperation cooperation The action of working together in the same task
The action of committing oneself or another to a course of
Commitment commitment action etc.; An engagement, an obligation; an act of
committing oneself
Pledge (oneself) by implication; bind (a person, oneself to a
to commit course of action); dedicate (oneself) morraly (to a doctrine
or cause)
A fight, a battle, a (prolonged) struggle between opposing
Conflict conflict forces; the clashing or variance of opposed principles,
beliefs, etc.
Source: Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993)
R.P. Perié 205

206 R.P. Perié

C.2 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS

Table C-0-1: Questionnaire Contents
R.P. Perié 207

Translation Questionnaire contents:

1. How would you describe your personal experience in earlier KLM – AAS cooperative
ventures?
2. What is your opinion regarding the manner of leadership for KLM – AAS cooperative
ventures?
3. How do you judge the flexibility of the KLM – AAS cooperative venture to adapt to a change
of context?
4. How would you describe the influence of the individual goals of KLM and AAS upon their
cooperative venture?
5. How would you consider the organizational structures of KLM and AAS to be conducive for
cooperation?
6. What is the influence of the physical distance between KLM and AAS upon their cooperation?
7. How would you consider the national norms, values and social cultural background of KLM
and AAS to be conducive for cooperation?
8. Dou you consider the business cultures of the individual firms KLM and AAS to be
conducive for cooperation?
9. Do you consider the professional norms, values, language and jargon to be conducive for
cooperation?
10. How would you typify your network of informal working relations within KLM and AAS?
11. What is your opinion regarding the effect of KLM and AAS to create a joint feeling of
togetherness?
12. How do you experience trust and respect in your personal relations with KLM and AAS
contacts?
13. Do you experience a sincere, honest and open atmosphere within the KLM – AAS
cooperative venture?
14. How do you consider the willingness between KLM and AAS to accept each other’s
comments and suggestions?
15. Are KLM and AAS conscious of the reciprocal dependency to attain the strategic goals?
16. How do KLM and AAS react to a situation where one party takes a dominant position?
17. Are KLM and AAS conscious of the consequences of each other’s performance upon their
own and their joint image?
18. Is it your opinion that within KLM and AAS adequate intensive use is made of channels to
exchange information?
19. Are there sufficient channels to exchange information between KLM and AAS?
20. Are employees conscious of the rationale and goals of the KLM – AAS cooperation?
21. How are decisions regarding KLM – AAS cooperation motivated and communicated?
22. What is your opinion of the KLM – AAS vision regarding cooperation as well as the
associated goals?
23. How is the KLM – AAS cooperative venture audited with respect to results and performance
to address subsequent improvements?
24. Are procedures and structure within the KLM – AAS venture defined and laid down?
25. Are responsibilities within KLM – AAS cooperation clearly described and allocated?
26. What is the attitude of the individual KLM and AAS organizations regarding their
cooperation?
27. Are promises within the KLM – AAS venture kept and followed up?
28. Does a willingness to share experience and knowledge exist within the KLM – AAS
cooperation?
29. Do you find a willingness to learn from KLM and AAS’s knowledge and experience?
30. Do you find that the required means are made available to the KLM – AAS cooperation?
31. What is your view regarding the manner of the KLM – AAS venture to address social and/or
professional conflicts/disagreements?
208 R.P. Perié

APPENDIX D ARTICLE CHARACTERISTICS
Research Type of
# Methodology Research object Stakeholders End variable
context Factor
collaboration R&D
lit vs. case study automotive,
projects university -
approach, build and aerospace, food university -
81 industry, improving throughput collaboration
evaluate a and drink industry
innovation
framework industry
efficiency
large cross-
organisational Inter-firm
88 survey section of US N/A input
commitment relationship
firms
successful conflict
client -
89 quant: survey management in n/a input NPD performance
supplier
collaborative NPD
knowledge
management
practices university- university
university -
91 case study approach industry, to enhance research units in throughput collaboration
industry
universities Thailand
innovation potential
for organisations
method description realign to fit strategy
(Strategic Fitness and capabilities general inter-organisational
60 N/A throughput
Process), case within an application alignment
discussion organisation
service level, order manufacturer
fulfilment rates, (seller) - Supply chain
66 simulation, literature Grocery industry input
order cycle time, retailer performance
supply chain cost (buyer)
information
intra-organisation intra-
a practical case single management of
73 information organisational throughput
study organisation intra-organisational
management collaboration
collaboration
Collaborative
Planning, European retailer & collaborati
74 case study collaboration
Forecasting and grocery sector manufacturer on
Replenishment
vertical
a case study grocery supply supply chain supply chain
96 collaboration/ supply throughput
approach chain collaboration collaboration
chain
multiple case study
explanatory
methodology, built a government-to- government digitally enabled
106 government input
heuristic model for government agencies collaboration
successful
implementation
alignment of
suppliers' know-how yarn, car and IT supplier - market
44 case input
with buyers' industries buyer responsiveness
business processes
comparison between
literature review IMP with five other organisation in
45 theoretical throughput theory on strategy
only schools of thought in network
strategy
Hospitality
53 questionnaire mission alignment N/A input internal alignment
management
alignment of the IT, mobile, supply chain
56 conceptual B2B
B2B SC Camera industry performance
industry arena
risk management
literature review on unclear, organisations strategic risk
58 model for single throughput
risk management organisations in in general management
organisation
general
64 representative group IT alignment utility company N/A throughput internal alignment
R.P. Perié 209

literature, database collaboration on manufacturing

70 B2B degree of novelty
(quant) innovation firms
quantitative, survey
among 348 doctoral
students, to illustrate
which factors
deemed by research
founders and
managers to
characterise
successful and industry -
unsuccessful collaborative R&D, academic industry -
71 throughput collaboration
collaboration are industry - academic research university
correlated with collaborations
success as viewed
from the perspective
of research students
(only concentrated
on supervisory,
project management
and communication
factors)
members of
inter-organisational Institute for buyer &
72 survey throughput collaboration
communication Supply supplier
Management
Japanese
questionnaires supplier - wholesaler
75 new collaborations distribution input
(quant) wholesaler performance
system
factors that affect
Pharmaceutical
qualitative and CRM improvement intra- Customer
78 company, input
quantitative methods strategy organisational Relationship
Merck-Medco
Management success
learning from alignment of
92 questionnaire (qual) Travel industry two cities throughput
collaboration regulations
factors influencing
collaboration museum - museum - collaborative
qualitative - case
93 museum - source source source input relationship between
study
community community community musea and source
communities
95 survey airline operations airlines competitors output alliance
motivation to
Yahoo e-
104 questionnaire (qual) collaboration in e- IT input knowledge creation
community
communities
identify and identify and validate
consolidate SC industry arena in key constructs
107 lit. vs. survey Supply chain input
factors to develop US underlying SCM
key SCM constructs research
collaborative
local county schools academic
survey / interviews, academic library relationship
108 and academic library - input
qualitative - schools academic library-
librarian schools
schools
empirical, field- performance supply chain
109 cross-sectional output collaboration
based findings improvement collaboration
lit. vs. multiple case
interfirm
study to form two Italian air-
collaboration,
110 theoretical buyer -supplier conditioning buyer-supplier throughput
customer supplier
formulation, OEMs
integration
qualitative
supply chain
111 questionnaire partnerships buyer - seller input collaboration
relationships
partnership UK local
triangle of:
approaches to authority, UK
lit vs. multiple case university - management-
112 management based input
study, qualitative manager - learning partnerships
learning (Higher organisation in
organisation
Education, leisure industry,
210 R.P. Perié

organisations, Welsh local

students) authority
qualitative action
research
Membership role of membership
(phenomenological), inter-
structures if inter- structure on inter-
114 working in and unknown organisational throughput
organisational organisational
observing collaboration
collaborations collaboration
organisational
collaborations
schools -
115 personal experience action research education input collaboration
universities
perceived factors
that influence
success of NPD
UK based
quantitative, survey buyer - supplier buyer - input - outcome (as a
116 suppliers of ICT
and case studies NPD supplier throughput function of
products
collaboration
experience
more/less)
teacher
analyse own
117 teacher education education education - input collaboration
organisation
disciplines
qualitative case
study, strategic alliance in
118 charter schools unknown
interviews/questionn charter schools
aires
hospital
119 data analysis sales results software cross-sectional output collaboration
systems industry
121 literature research benchmarking generic cross-sectional N/A collaboration
collaborative communities-
122 experience analysis public health throughput collaboration
research researchers
qualitative, Non-confrontational
organizations in
observation and behaviour in
environmental the
124 participation and unknown throughput collaboration in
partnerships environmental
interview case environmental
domain
studies partnerships
Multi-agency child welfare government
125 literature research collaboration
partnerships services organisations
factors for
context of successful public
lit vs. case study (9- public non-profit input -
126 emergency horizontal non-profit
11) organisations throughput
services partnerships for
collective action
university-
formation of government
129 surveys industry- N/A partnership
relationships policy
government
economic,
organizational and
lit vs. case studies, UK construction psychological
136 client-contractor vertical throughput
qualitative industry factors of
collaboration in
practice
changing construction owner-
137 questionnaire throughput partnership
relationships industry contractor
learning partnerships
between
nursing factors important to
undergraduate
academia and professional learning
141 survey study psychiatric-mental throughput
service partnerships/collabo
health nursing
institution ration
students and
practicing nurses
University -
building steps for
Canadian healthy research
142 case study (qual) healthy research healthcare input
Health partnership
partnership
Services
R.P. Perié 211

Research
Foundation
quant: literature cooperation various successful
144 B2B input
survey behaviour businesses outsourcing
212 R.P. Perié

APPENDIX E KEY DOCUMENTS
The following brief abstracts of specific documents provide background information in the
context of the DFA model.
Lam P.K. and Chin K.S., 2005, Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for
conflict management in collaborative new product development, Industrial Marketing
Management.
Lam and Chin (2005) found that in collaborative new product development (NPD) clients
and suppliers appear to have divergent views on prioritization of factors for collaboration or
alignment. Clients consider conflict handling as a critical factor in collaboration, whereas
suppliers value relationship management and communication as more important. This
implies that importance of Factors for Alignment can also be dependent on a firm’s position
in the value system. Despite their differences, the common goal is to develop and maintain a
long-term relationship.
Beer M., Voelpel S.C., Leibold M., Tekie E.B., 2005, Strategic Management as
Organizational Learning: Developing Fit and Alignment through a Disciplined Process,
Long Range Planning.
Beer et al. (2005) recognize the necessity for a dynamic organization in order to achieve
alignment, which requires emotional engagement as well as employee involvement to be
accepted within the organization. Beer et al. (2005) developed a strategy to implement such
an adaptation known as the Structural Fitness Process. At the centre of this strategy are 7
capabilities coordination, competence, commitment, communication, conflict management,
creativity and capacity management that influence an organization’s ability to apply its
strategy.
Wu F., Cavusgil S.T., 2006, Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation
in inter-firm relationships, Journal of Business Research.
In their study of benefits of inter-firm alliances Wu and Cavusgil (2006) hypothesize that
stronger firm learning intention, partner sensing, and relationship initiation abilities, lead to
a higher level of organizational commitment. All three hypotheses are substantiated by
measurements “gathered from a large cross-section of U.S. firms actively engaged in
collaborative ventures”. Furthermore, the authors prove that a higher level of organizational
commitment between partners leads to better alliance performance.
Barnes T.A., Pashby I.R., Gibbons A.M., 2006, Managing collaborative R&D projects
development of a practical management tool, International Journal of Project Management.
A multiple case study by Barnes et al. (2006) covering the automotive and aerospace industry
resulted in the ability of the authors to test many of the in literature identified success factors
related to large collaborative programs, in practice. The result is a comprehensive list of
factors clustered within a framework describing a step-by-step collaborative project approach.
The phases are:
1. Partner-related issues followed by;
R.P. Perié 213

2. Project Set-up & Execution, which is under influence of Cultural Gap Issues and
Universal Issues, and subsequently;
3. Outcomes.
Application of the framework by the authors revealed insight into its effectiveness and
underlined the importance of the following factors as being key to success: collaboration
champion, corporate stability with respect to commitment, management skills, communicate
on, team work, understanding of industry issues, complementary attributes, effective
management, conflict management, personal commitment. The research described in this
paper encourages an improved awareness of key issues affecting the success of collaboration
or alignment.
Littler D., Leverick F., Bruce M., 1995, Factors affecting the process of collaborative
product development: A study of UK manufacturers of information and communications
technology products, Journal of Product Innovation Management.
The analysis conducted by Littler et. al. (1995) is focused upon first exploring the rationale
behind collaborative product developments, secondly on which criteria are used for assessing
the performance of collaboration or alignment, third its perceived benefits and drawbacks,
concluded by the identification and measurement of major factors that affect the probability
of securing a favorable outcome. Concerning the latter the outcome resulted in the
identification of six types of responses with each their specific valuable success factors, these
response types include choice of partner, establishing ground rules, ensuring equality,
process factors, people factors and environmental factors.
214 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE SUMMARY
SUMMARY
ALL FOR ONE,

at KLM and Schiphol
Research Motivation
The inter-dependency between airlines and airports in producing air-transport services is
tight, i.e. their destinies are inter-twined. Their existence as viable economic entities depends
upon market performance of each other. This leads to the assumption that the relation of
airlines – airports serves as an example case for dyadic alignment.
After decades of largely independent, solitaire development strategies, both airlines and
airports have started to rethink their traditional customer-supplier relationship. While
traditionally airports have been viewed solely as infrastructure providers for airlines, today
their relationship is being considered in the light of an air transport system as a whole.
Alignment of airlines and airports constitutes a fundamental precondition for improving
operational effectiveness and efficiency and developing new areas of business. The next step
in obtaining additional significant benefits is sharing the required effort for inter-action of
similar major functionalities and processes by an alignment. Although airlines and airports
recognize the potential benefits, a clear acceptance to facilitate the application of alignment
has not widely been agreed upon. It is therefore necessary to define factors that lead to
alignment, in this case between a (main carrier) airline and (hub) airport, i.e. KLM and AAS.
In order to realize inter-organizational relationships KLM and AAS need a better

understanding of the factors for an alignment of their inter-dependent business processes.
Airlines and airports, such as KLM and AAS, focus upon the same targets with quality of
service being a defining variable of the dyad. In aviation, quality is mainly a function of
punctuality, reliability and service. International airlines tend to be rather homogenous in
terms of sales, service and transportation quality in the air. Competition is more likely to be
seen in terms of service on the ground and in this sense airports and airlines are partners in
their activities, such as KLM and AAS.
On the ground the objectives of KLM and AAS are to a large extent inter-dependent, which
provides a foundation for alignment of their business processes. Derived from their common
objectives, the next step would be to consider the processes which can be identified as of a
mutual nature, i.e. inter-dependent. This defines their business process dyads. The aim of this
research is to find Factors for Alignment for specific inter-dependent processes of KLM and
AAS, at different levels of decision making, contributing to creation of competitive
advantage. Due to interest of this academic research as well as the interest of KLM and AAS,
the following business processes were selected based upon mutually agreed inter-dependency
and therefore to be considered in the context of an alignment:
R.P. Perié 215

SUMMARY ALL FOR ONE
The research question for this dissertation is:
Research Set-up and Findings

In the first part of this dissertation the intent of the literature research is two-fold. It is
intended to understand alignment in the context of the value system including airlines and
airports, i.e. KLM and AAS. Derived from this literature research, the development of the
Delft Factors for Alignment model (DFA model) is a vehicle to help create this
understanding as well as the effect of different factors upon the manner as well as intensity of
“working together”. In this research, the DFA model is used to research four dyadic business
processes at KLM and AAS. The DFA model lists its 31 factors, grouped by 10 constructs.
In the second part of this dissertation the empirical research of alignment within specific
business processes is based upon triangulation. A collection of three types of data is
conducted, each having the same objective to measure the performance of the Factors for
Alignment. The methods used to collect data are sequentially the following:
• Interviews;
• Questionnaires;
• Data comparison of partner firms, i.e. KLM and AAS.
First, the interviews shed light upon the issues existing within the processes, i.e. qualitative
information. The DFA model, created by literature research, is subsequently applied to
transform the qualitative information into quantitative data. The interview results, i.e. issues,
are an explicit indication by the respondents of the Potential for Alignment of the factors.
The explicit potential is defined as the importance of the related factor.
Secondly, the application of a questionnaire provides a tool to measure the performance of
Factors for Alignment, i.e. another source of quantitative data. The questionnaire is on the
other hand is an implicit indication of its potential. The implicit indication of Potential for
Alignment is indicated by the Factor Delta.
The combination of both information streams leads to a firm and process specific analysis
regarding the Factors for Alignment. These results are, subsequently, compared with those of
the partnering firm, carried out for four business processes.
The combination of both implicit and explicit Potential for Alignment, i.e. the combination of
the data streams, results in the definition of the Potential for Alignment of each factor. These
two variables of Potential for Alignment are combined in a plot with X-axis being the factor
occurrence and the Y-axis being the Factor Delta constituting the Factor Delta vs.
Occurrence Plot.
Thirdly, data combination of the dyadic firms provides the opportunity to reflect upon both
firms’:
• identified issues, and their associated factors; this information has a restricted
distribution;
• questionnaire factor scores, the perceived factor occurrence, and the factor Potential
for Alignment i.e. its position in the Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot (e.g. HIGH,
MEDIUM, LOW) and ranking tables.
216 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE SUMMARY
• This reflection or combination allows insight into the feasibility of alignment of the
specific inter-dependent business processes of KLM and AAS. The DFA model
demonstrates its usefulness.
The position of the factors of both firms is made visible by the comparison of each other’s
Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot. The graphical representation of the location of each factor
enables a comparison of each of the positional characteristics of the same factor at the partner
firm. The factor comparison is characterized by their position within one of the arbitrary
regions ‘LOW’, ‘MEDIUM’ or ‘HIGH’ Potential for Alignment. The required Factors for
Alignment are provided.
In the third part of this dissertation the DFA model is applied to the four dyadic business
processes mentioned above. The research thereof follows a similar outline to present the
results of each case study in a comparable manner, i.e.
• KLM analysis results:
- Combining Interview and Questionnaire Results: factor occurrence and factor
delta multiplied and associated plot;
• AAS analysis results:
- Combining Interview and Questionnaire Results: factor occurrence and factor
delta multiplied and associated plot;
• Conclusion business process dyad KLM – AAS: comparison of KLM and AAS
analysis results regarding the DFA model.
Four concluding tables of the researched business processes in Chapter 4, provide the
following primary and secondary Factors for Alignment for the dyadic combination of KLM
and AAS. The research question is answered by the indicated primary and secondary Factors
for Alignment listed per business process in an overview in Table 5-1, illustrated below. This
also implies that the DFA model is effective for finding Factors for Alignment in dyadic
business processes.
Business Process
12 Attitude Att s s
R.P. Perié 217

SUMMARY ALL FOR ONE
26 Mind-set Mns s s
28 Sharing Sh s s
Research Contribution
As no previous research has addressed the complex relation between airlines and airports, nor
the alignment of their inter-dependent elements such as dyadic business processes, neither
viable academic theory nor empirical evidence exists. The phenomenon of this relation is of
importance to both the main-carrier airline KLM and its hub-airport AAS. This research fills
the void of plausible research by theory-building.
This research explores the relationship between KLM and AAS from a strategic management
perspective. It emphasizes the potential benefits of aligned dyadic relationships between their
specific dyadic business processes. This dissertation provides a novel contribution to
scientific research by the creation of the Delft Factors for Alignment (DFA) model and
defines applicable Factors for Alignment for specific dyadic business processes at KLM and
AAS. This research has shown that the DFA model is an appropriate diagnostic tool in the
analysis of alignment of dyadic business processes of these firms. Providing specific
attention by management to these identified Factors for Alignment in the near future can be
of significance to the dyadic business processes.
Finally, the research demonstrates that there are Factors for Alignment of dyadic business
processes at KLM and AAS, as illustrated in the table above.
This research is by no means a definitive and exhaustive work on the topic of dyadic business
process alignment. The research opens up several avenues for further application as well as
future research to refine and expand the insights that have been brought forward by this
dissertation.
Rolf P. Perié
218 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE SUMMARY
R.P. Perié 219

SUMMARY ALL FOR ONE
220 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE NEDERLANDSE SAMMENVATTING
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING
ÉÉN VOOR ALLEN,

Factoren voor afstemming van wederzijds afhankelijke bedrijfsprocessen
bij KLM en Schiphol
Onderzoeksmotivatie
De wederzijdse afhankelijkheid van luchtvaart maatschappijen en vliegvelden bij de
productie van luchttransport diensten is sterk, d.w.z. hun respectievelijke toekomst is nauw
verweven met elkaar. Hun bestaansrecht als economische eenheden is afhankelijk van de
respectievelijke prestaties in de markt. Dit leidt tot de aanname dat de relatie tussen
luchtvaart maatschappijen en vliegvelden als voorbeeld dient voor een “dyadische”
afstemming.
Na tientallen jaren van in algemene zin onafhankelijke en solitaire ontwikkeling van strategie,
zijn luchtvaart maatschappijen en vliegvelden begonnen om hun traditionele klant-
leverancier relatie te herzien. Terwijl traditioneel vliegvelden uitsluitend zijn beschouwd als
leverancier van infrastructuur t.b.v. luchtvaart maatschappijen, wordt tegenwoordig hun
relatie beschouwd in het licht van een eenheid als een luchttransport systeem.
Afstemming van luchtvaart maatschappijen en vliegvelden vormt een fundamentele
voorwaarde voor verbetering van effectiviteit en efficiëntie en ontwikkeling van nieuwe
vormen van handel. De volgende stap in het verkrijgen van belangrijke voordelen is het delen
van de benodigde inspanning van de interactie voor gelijksoortige majeure functionaliteiten
en processen door een afstemming. Hoewel luchtvaart maatschappijen en vliegvelden de
potentiële voordelen herkennen, bestaat nog geen overeenstemming t.a.v. de toepassing van
een afstemming. Daarom is het nodig om factoren te definiëren die tot afstemming leiden, in
dit geval tussen een grote luchtvaart maatschappij en een groot vliegveld, d.w.z. KLM en
AAS.
Om de mogelijkheid te realiseren van een relatie tussen organisaties zullen KLM en AAS een
verbeterd begrip dienen te krijgen van de factoren voor een afgestemde relatie tussen de
wederzijds afhankelijke bedrijfsprocessen van hun organisaties. Luchtvaart maatschappijen
en vliegvelden zoals KLM en AAS zijn gericht op dezelfde doelen met kwaliteit van de
dienstverlening als bepalende variabele van hun “dyadische” relatie. In de luchtvaart, is
kwaliteit meestal een functie van punctualiteit, betrouwbaarheid, en dienstverlening.
Internationale luchtvaart maatschappijen lijken veel op elkaar v.w.b. verkoop,
dienstverlening en kwaliteit van het vervoer door de lucht. Concurrentie wordt eerder bezien
op de grond en in deze zijn vliegvelden en luchtvaart maatschappijen medestanders tijdens
uitvoering van hun activiteiten, zoals KLM en AAS.
Op de grond zijn de doelstellingen van KLM en AAS in algemene zin wederzijds afhankelijk,
wat het fundament levert voor afstemming van hun bedrijfsprocessen. Afgeleid van hun
gezamenlijke doelstellingen, zal de volgende stap kunnen zijn de bedrijfsprocessen te
bepalen welke worden aangeduid als van gemeenschappelijke aard d.w.z. wederzijds
afhankelijk. Dit definieert hun “dyadische” bedrijfsprocessen. De doelstelling van dit
onderzoek is om Factoren voor Afstemming te vinden t.b.v. specifieke wederzijds
afhankelijke bedrijfsprocessen van KLM en AAS, op verschillende niveaus van
R.P. Perié 221

NEDERLANDSE SAMMENVATTING ALL FOR ONE
besluitvorming, terwijl een bijdrage wordt geleverd aan de ontwikkeling van een
concurrentie voordeel. Als gevolg van de academische interesse van dit onderzoek als van de
bedrijfsmatige interesse van KLM en AAS, zijn de volgende bedrijfsprocessen gekozen
gebaseerd op gemeenschappelijke overeenstemming t.a.v. de wederzijdse afhankelijkheid en
daardoor te beschouwen in de context van afstemming:
De onderzoeksvraag voor deze dissertatie is:
“Which are the factors for alignment of dyadic business processes at KLM and AAS?”
Onderzoeksopzet en –bevindingen
In het eerste deel van deze dissertatie is de doelstelling van het literatuur onderzoek
tweeledig. Het doel is om afstemming te begrijpen in de context van de waardeketen van
luchtvaart maatschappijen en vliegvelden zoals KLM en AAS. Afgeleid van dit literatuur
onderzoek is de ontwikkeling van het model Delfts Factoren voor Afstemming (DFA model).
Dit is een hulpmiddel voor het begrip over het effect van de verschillende factoren op de
wijze zo wel als de intensiteit van samenwerking. In dit onderzoek, wordt het DFA model
benut om de vier “dyadische” bedrijfsprocessen bij KLM en AAS te onderzoeken. Het DFA
model toont de 31 factoren, gegroepeerd door 10 constructs.
In het tweede deel van deze dissertatie wordt het empirisch onderzoek van afstemming van
specifieke bedrijfsprocessen gebaseerd op triangulatie. Een verzameling van drie typen data
wordt onderzocht waarbij elk type dezelfde doelstelling heeft om het gedrag te meten van
Factoren voor Afstemming. De gebruikte methoden voor de verzameling van data zijn
opeenvolgend:
• Interviews;
• Questionnaires;
• Vergelijking van data van samenwerkende firma’s, zoals KLM en AAS.
Ten eerste, leveren de interviews inzicht v.w.b. de bestaande kwesties binnen de processen,
d.w.z. kwalitatieve informatie. Het DFA model, n.a.v. literatuur onderzoek, wordt vervolgens
toegepast om de kwalitatieve informatie om te zetten in kwantitatieve data. De resultaten van
de interviews, d.w.z. de kwesties, zijn een expliciete indicatie van de respondenten t.a.v. het
Potentieel voor Afstemming van Factoren. Het expliciete potentieel is gedefinieerd als het
belang van de gerelateerde factor.
Ten tweede, toepassing van de questionnaire levert gereedschap om het gedrag te meten van
de Factoren voor Afstemming, d.w.z. een andere bron van kwantitatieve data. De resultaten
van de questionnaires echter zijn een impliciete indicatie van het potentieel. De impliciete
indicatie van het Potentieel voor Afstemming wordt bepaald door de Factor Delta.
De combinatie van beide informatie stromen, leidt tot een organisatorisch en proces
specifieke analyse v.w.b. Factoren voor Afstemming. Deze resultaten zijn vervolgens
222 R.P. Perié

vergeleken met die van de samenwerkende organisatie uitgevoerd voor vier business
processen. De combinatie van het expliciete en impliciete Potentieel voor Afstemming, d.w.z.
de combinatie van data, levert de definitie van het Potentieel voor Afstemming van elke
factor. Deze twee variabelen voor Potentieel voor Afstemming worden gecombineerd in een
plot met als x-as the “factor occurrence” en de y-as als Factor Delta daarmee de
samenstelling van het “Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plot”.
Ten derde, vergelijking van data van de samenwerkende organisaties levert de mogelijkheid
om na te denken over wat beide organisaties opleveren aan:
• Geïdentificeerde kwesties, en hun gerelateerde factoren; deze informatie heeft een
beperkte distributie;
• Uitkomsten van questionnaires, de waargenomen “Factor Occurrence”, en het Factor
Potentieel voor Afstemming, d.w.z. de positie ervan in het Factor Delta vs.
Occurrence Plot, t.w. HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW en gepriotiseerde rangorde.
• Deze overdenking of vergelijking geeft inzicht in de haalbaarheid van afstemming
van de wederzijds afhankelijke bedrijfsprocessen van KLM en AAS. Het DFA model
bewijst het nut ervan.
De positie van de factoren van beide organisaties wordt gepresenteerd door de vergelijking
van elkaars “Factor Delta vs. Occurrence Plots”. De grafische presentatie van de positie van
elke factor bewerkstelligt het vergelijk van elk van de positionele karakteristieken van
dezelfde factor van de samenwerkende organisatie. De vergelijking van factoren wordt
gekarakteriseerd door hun positie binnen één van de arbitraire gebieden LOW, MEDIUM of
HIGH Potentieel voor Afstemming. De gewenste Factoren voor Afstemming wordt geleverd.
In het derde deel van deze dissertatie wordt het DFA model toegepast op de vier “dyadische”
bedrijfsprocessen, zoals hier boven vermeld. Het onderzoek daarvan volgt een
overeenkomstige volgorde opdat de resultaten van elke “case study” op een vergelijkbare
wijze wordt gepresenteerd, d.w.z.:
• KLM analyse:
- Combinatie resultaten Interviews en Questionnaires: “Factor Occurrence”
vermenigvuldigd met Factor Delta, met gerelateerde plot;
• AAS analyse:
- Combinatie resultaten Interviews en Questionnaires: “Factor Occurrence”
vermenigvuldigd met Factor Delta, met gerelateerde plot;
• Conclusie dyadische relatie KLM – AAS: vergelijking van KLM en AAS analyse
resultaten n.a.v. het DFA model.
Vier concluderende tabellen van de onderzochte bedrijfsprocessen, leveren de volgende

factoren vanuit het HIGH segment voor Potentiële Afstemming van de dyadische combinatie
van KLM en AAS. De onderzoeksvraag is beantwoord door de hieronder genoemde primaire
en secondaire Factoren voor Afstemming per bedrijfsproces in een overzicht in Table 5-1,
hieronder. Dit impliceert dat het DFA model effectief is voor de analyse van dyadische
bedrijfsprocessen.
R.P. Perié 223

Business Process
12 Attitude Att s s
26 Mind-set Mns s s
28 Sharing Sh s s
Onderzoeksbijdrage
Omdat onderzoek nooit is uitgevoerd t.a.v. de complexe relatie van luchtvaart
maatschappijen en vliegvelden, laat staan de afstemming van hun wederzijds afhankelijke
bedrijfsprocessen, bestaat geen levensvatbare academische theorie noch empirische
bewijsvoering. Het fenomeen van deze relatie is van belang voor de grote luchtvaart
maatschappij KLM als voor haar “hub” vliegveld AAS. Dit onderzoek vult de leemte van
aanvaardbaar onderzoek door theorie bouwend onderzoek.
Het onderzoek verkent de relatie tussen KLM en AAS vanuit het perspectief van strategisch
management. Het benadrukt de potentiële voordelen van afgestemde dyadische relaties
224 R.P. Perié

tussen hun specifieke dyadische bedrijfsprocessen. Deze dissertatie levert een baanbrekende
bijdrage aan wetenschappelijk onderzoek door de ontwikkeling van het Delfts model
Factoren voor Afstemming (DFA model) en definieert toepasbare Factoren voor Afstemming
t.b.v. specifieke dyadische bedrijfsprocessen bij KLM en AAS. Dit onderzoek heeft
aangetoond dat het DFA model een geschikt diagnostisch gereedschap is voor de analyse van
dyadische bedrijfsprocessen van deze organisaties. Specifieke aandacht van het management
voor de geïdentificeerde Factoren voor Afstemming in de naaste toekomst kan significant
blijken te zijn voor deze dyadische bedrijfsprocessen.
Ten slotte, het onderzoek toont aan dat Factoren voor Afstemming van dyadische business
processen bestaan, zoals geïllustreerd in de tabel hier boven.
Dit onderzoek is niet een definitief noch een uitputtend werkstuk t.a.v. het onderwerp van
afstemming van dyadische bedrijfsprocessen. Het onderzoek opent verschillende richtingen
voor zowel verder als vervolg onderzoek waarin de bevindingen kunnen worden verfijnd en
uitgebreid.
Rolf P. Perié
R.P. Perié 225

226 R.P. Perié

ALL FOR ONE CURRICULUM VITAE
CURRICULUM VITAE
Rolf P. Perié (Soerabaja, Indonesia, October 14, 1939) completed studies for the degree
Master of Science, Electrical Engineer at the Delft University of Technology in 2002, while
working at the National Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) in Delft. In
September 2005, after retiring, Rolf returned to the academia to coach students working on
their final thesis while carrying out their internship at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and at
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol respectively. This worthwhile and gratifying activity became
part of his research for a doctorate at the same university. Rolf is proud to have supervised
and/or coached thirteen students in the pursuit of their own degree Master of Science,
Aerospace Engineer.
Previous professional experience of Rolf is summarized by his naval career during 34 years.
More than 14 years thereof were spent in various ships at sea in the Far East, the
Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Atlantic Ocean and of course the Norwegian and North
Seas. This period was augmented by staff positions at the Ministry of Defense in The Hague,
including Secretary to the first Director General for Materiel as well as Director of Planning
and Policy at the Naval Materiel Directorate. Rolf’s international exposure included exercise
planning at the joint headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia for NATO’s armed forces in the
Atlantic Ocean area. As final task, Rolf was Defense Attaché at the Netherlands embassies in
Paris, France as well as in Lisbon, Portugal.
After his retirement from the Royal Netherlands Navy in 1992, Rolf became Principal
Planning Coordinator at SHAPE Technical Centre in The Hague during the 1993 – 1996 time
frames, now the NATO C3 Agency. Subsequently until in the spring of 2005, Rolf was
Secretary of the Defense Research Council as well as Secretary of the Management Team for
the three main institutes for defense and safety research at TNO in Delft.
R.P. Perié 227

Rolf P. Perié

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rolf P. Perié

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ALL FOR ONE

Factors for alignment of inter-dependent business processes

ALL FOR ONE

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

Rolf Peter PERIÉ

R.P. Perié iii

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Prof. dr. ir. J.T. Fokkema Rector Magnificus, voorzitter

Proefschrift Technische Universiteit Delft,

Key-words: factors, alignment, business processes, dyads, inter-dependency, airline-airport

Copyright © 2008 by R.P. Perié. All rights reserved.

Prof. mr. dr. ir. S.C. Santema

M.M.H. van Boxtel (Drs.Ing.) B.J.H. Gimberg B. Lievegoed (Drs.)

“A picture paints a thousand words” remains a relevant expression. Nettie Veldhoen, as a

Delft, The Netherlands

Inter-dependence and Mutual Benefit

The Scientific Challenge

The international competitiveness of the national economy, including in particular the

R.P. Perié vii

Scientific Inspiration for Dissertation

viii R.P. Perié

As airline and hub competition becomes fiercer, airline-airport co-operation becomes a

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xvii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................. xix

2 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 57

2.6 Combining Interview and Questionnaire Data ..............................................................................72

3 Literature Research into Factors for Alignment ....................................................... 77

4 Research of Business Processes at KLM and AAS .................................................... 95

6 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 151

References ............................................................................................................................ 163

xii R.P. Perié

Nederlandse Samenvatting................................................................................................. 221

Curriculum Vitae ................................................................................................................ 227

R.P. Perié xiii

xiv R.P. Perié

Figure 1-1: Research focus within national civil aviation ....................................................................................23

xvi R.P. Perié

Table 3-1: Literature Search Data ........................................................................................................................79

R.P. Perié xvii

Table 4-21: AAS Infrastructure Planning Ranked Results Compared ...............................................................128

xviii R.P. Perié

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

Abbreviations of Factors for Alignment

R.P. Perié xix

1.2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

1.2.1 CIVIL AVIATION AND ALIGNMENT

Figure 1-1: Research focus within national civil aviation

Airlines and KLM

Figure 1-2: Overview of Major Airline Business Models in Europe

Airports and AAS

Figure 1-4: Major Challenges for the European Airline Industry

Figure 1-5: Alignment in the Value Chain

1.2.2 CONTEXT FOR AND CORPORATE INTEREST OF KLM & AAS

Figure 1-6: Mainport development objectives of KLM and AAS

Figure 1-7: Mainport interaction cycle of this research

Figure 1-8: Processes and aspects influencing the interaction cycle

1.2.3 RESEARCH WITHIN STRATEGY OF AEROSPACE MANAGEMENT AND

1.3 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH FIELD

is considered as partnership enhancing C³ behavior. This C³ behavior reduces the potentially

1.3.1 VALUE CHAIN AND APPLICATION OF WILLIAMSON’S ORGANIZATIONAL

Figure 1-9: Value Chain Transition from Adversarial to Collaborative Relationships

1.3.2 VALUE CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Figure 1-10: Value Chain Airports