Next-Generation Competence Center (Part III): Aligning Business And IT

In my previous article in this series, I examined the question: “Where is the business going, and consequently, what should the role of IT be?”

In this article, I will share an approach to align the business and IT strategy in a way that will keep the promise of long-lasting corporate brand identity.

You can say, “Where business goes, IT follows.” The problem is that the “where” (i.e., a desired target state) is hiding the “who” (i.e., who you are and who you want to be by reaching a new destination).

This reminds me of an evergreen quote from Lucius Annaeus Seneca: “Our plans miscarry because they have no aim. When a man does not know what harbor he is making for, no wind is the right wind.

The point is that the business and IT aims must be aligned, and the two identities should converge. The question is how to do that if what IT wants to do first is not necessarily what the business is asking for.

The conflicting identities of business and IT popped up a few months ago when I was breaking the ice with customers who were interested in managing their systems with a more agile IT competence center. They wanted this competence center to run and support the deployment of SAP S/4HANA, which was going live imminently.

I was looking for a model that would help them plan and build for their system landscape’s evolution. I ended up combining three key philosophies from very different sources:

  1. Logical levels learned in The Art & Science of Coaching training, which provides the structure for moving from an inspiring vision to more concrete actions in specific times and places
  2. The corporate brand identity matrix, from the Harvard Business Review, to find the “unique twist” of a company’s identity based on its brand or core values
  3. Diversity and inclusion concepts learned from SAP’s employee training, which adds the “fairness” spices

Starting with “logical levels”

The student guide for the Erickson Academy’s The Art & Science of Coaching shows a pyramid that elegantly sorts the structure and dependencies of “five plus one” logical levels:

Vision is the “plus one” level of the pyramid, which inspires identity (the top logical level) rooted in core values representing the reason specific behaviors (skills and actions) define the different ways to play in a given context.

Those general concepts also work well for business and IT people working together in alignment for a common vision, mission, and strategy:

  1. Identity: Who are you now? What sort of person/organization would you rather be? (Shifting into a new role)
  2. Values: Why is this important? What values does it have? (Values behind identity and vision)
  3. Skills: How will you achieve it? What capabilities do you have? What skills do you need to develop? (Knowledge, experience, methods, and tools)
  4. Actions/behaviors: What actions need to be taken? What steps could you take to support X? (Action plan, steps, behaviors)
  5. Environment: Where will you want this? When will you do it? (Time and geography)

Deriving IT mission, vision, and strategy from “corporate and brand identity”

Stephen A. Greyser and Mats Urde, in their HBR article “What Does Your Corporate Brand Stand For?” (issue 97, Jan./Feb. 2019), illustrate a framework for a corporate brand identity definition.

The brand core is at the center of the framework, surrounded by eight elements, making room for nine questions to be answered.

After reading this article, I thought of my current next-generation competence center design project and decided to first answer the corporate identity questions from the business point of view, then answer the same questions from the IT point of view.

My IT counterparts were dubious after the first attempt to answer the questions from the IT point of view. Later, when I insisted on doing this exercise in a timebox fashion (I stepped out of the room for less than an hour), I heard excitement and realized how well they did in filling out different forms twice, based on the different points of view.

The first time you answer the nine questions from both points of view – business (as suggested by HBR) and IT (for the sake of the next-generation IT competence center) – your answers might look sloppy or disconnected. This is because consistency must be checked along four directions, aimed at enhancing four “angles.”

The clearer and more logical your definitions (answers) and narrative (combination of answers), the more consistent the identity matrix and the stronger your identity will be. That’s provided that all the four directions are properly crossing the very same core values, i.e., core brand.

In short, check the nine answers in clusters of four, as follows:

  1. Strategy: Is the mission (what you promise) consistent with where you want to be (vision)?
  2. Competition: Is what you offer (your value proposition) unique due to particularly distinctive skills?
  3. Interaction: Does the way you interact (your relationships) delight your customers thanks to uncommon behaviors rooted in a well-known culture?
  4. Communication: Is your communication style fostered by unique personality traits?

Repeat this process a few times and try to discard concepts that don’t contribute to clear answers. Sometimes less is more.

Adding “diversity and inclusion”

Building a culture of diversity and inclusion plays an important role in aligning business and IT strategy.

Diversity and inclusion training can stretch minds, enrich vocabulary, and enhance the ability to think differently. It will create a balance between individual and collective culture and help you achieve measurable targets, fueling a new, more open, and correct way of working.

Here are some things to consider when building a culture of diversity and inclusion:

  1. Culture elements: Shared values, knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and behaviors
  2. Culture transmission: Socializing agents (people we are with) and institutions (school, government)
  3. Cultural attitudes: Role models made of different attributes, to be tuned up to better fit a given target cultural attitude:
    • Status: Rank-oriented (do what the boss commands) vs. equality-oriented (challenging/arguing with boss is OK)
    • Identity: Individual-oriented (what I/he did) vs. group-oriented (the result we made)
    • Activity: Task-oriented (duty first) vs. relationship-oriented (people first).
    • Risk: Risk-taker (change-driven) vs. stability-seeking (steady state is better)
    • Communication: Direct (talk/write clearly – facts only) vs. indirect (room for interpretation – body language)

Thinking more and deeply about who we are and who we want to be is always good for us and for the people who want to take action.

Are you intrigued or skeptical?

I’ll be happy to hear your comments and adjust the recipe for aligning business and IT strategy.

Stretch your mind on the Next-Generation Competence Center by reading my previous articles on the topic, “Part I” and  “Part II.”

Next-Generation Competence Center (Part II)

The role of IT: Where business goes, IT follows

In this article, we’ll start by determining which moment your company is living—i.e., where is the business going, and consequently, what should the role of IT be?

To clarify the debates around competence center best-fits and how business needs and business strategy should shape the goal of an IT department, I modified this model from an MIT article published by Weill and Ross in March 2005:

I have used this model many times to advise customers in setting the right expectations with business and top management. This representation smoothly navigates the discussion on what an IT department or a specific competence center should do, bringing the required “either-or” attitude to the decision-making process.

If you show decision-makers this schema and have them label where they see their company in its current state and where they see it at a future state in terms of the different goals, it’s easy to derive the focus of the IT organization you are talking about:

  • Standardization is suitable for centrally ruled/managed/delivered processes and services, but it is not prone to change.
  • Competition mode encourages local initiatives, triggering innovation more than centralization.
  • Harmonization is the compromise between the two extreme situations or moments that a company may live in.

I use this next schema to help customers plan for IT changes and determine where to allocate decision-making bodies; it mirrors the three columns of Weill and Ross and offers illustrative combinations of IT governance elements fit for the selected “target state.”

Business decision authority (business or CC-owned) is the first thing to be sorted out to define the customer’s single point of contact/decision-maker for a given business process/topic.

  • If there is only one business process owner in the entire organization, then centralization is already there; if different BUs/countries have different equivalent roles, independence or coordination may be needed (committees, advisory boards, champions come into play).

Solution design authority (CC- or IT-owned) is the second thing to be organized:

  • Rarely does all expertise exist in one role or one person.
  • External consultants are needed to evaluate, review, and validate architecture.

The rest of the activities (organizational units and roles) can be located within CC, in the rest of IT, or outsourced.

  • Build and test is normally sourced to system integrators, internally for small changes, or to stable partners working with a master service agreement.
  • Adjustments and rollout are normally driven internally.
  • Support and maintenance, depending on support levels, can be sourced in different mixes.
  • Operations are likely to be mostly centralized, insourced, or outsourced.

Based on enterprise structure (business units, geographies, etc.) and organization constraints (business accountability for business, processes, and data), the IT mission is reviewed before IT governance and organization are designed consistently, considering global/central stakeholders and users versus local, national, and functional specific needs.

A competence center, as part of an IT department, inherits a portion of missions and goals of the organization it belongs to and therefore can be oriented toward cost-cutting or encouraging innovation (agility and flexibility).

If we forget the magic word—digital—we can see that some management practices are still fit for defining the rules of the game for a competence center.

In theory (with an unlimited budget, enough time, new systems, powerful tools, and skillful resource), any business need can be answered properly. However, this is hardly the case in the real world, especially for large enterprises.

  • Selection of changes worth investing in is a necessity, and sequence matters. Foundational changes enabling subsequent ones is a delicate art. Business processes and existing systems include many constraints and dependencies to consider and changes in plans are very likely.
  • Fully understanding and prioritizing business requirements and impacts requires modern IT professionals to be not only IT experts but also “business smart” and careful.
  • IT must be ready, fast, and skilled enough to be recognized as the best shop to check first (which means they must be agile).

If your department can meet these preconditions, you still may be stopped or slowed by other roadblocks, such as slow funding procedures more sensitive to financial indicators than to strategic outcomes and people’s natural resistance to change.

I have worked as both a CIO and a management consultant, so I’ve made and faced similar situations at different times from different angles.

There are only two exits at the “go/no-go” roundabout (three if you add deferred decision-making):

  1. Even the apparently secured budget (e.g., for IT revamping necessary changes that include hardware replacements every five years and upgrading out of maintenance software) is likely to be written off or postponed until the next “business-funded transformation train” is about to start.
  2. If business asks for and is willing to fund innovation, it’s easy; if the envisioned innovation can be monetized then it’s always possible to build a value case (a good story explaining the benefits, even if it lacks numbers) or a business case (with NPV, ROI, and all the indexes that please CFOs) and find the money and resources needed for any good ideas popping up.
  3. If there aren’t enough good reasons to proceed with a given change – and compliance with new regulations may not be enough – the proposed change will be dropped (or “temporarily deferred” for a long time until it is forgotten) and superseded by a more urgent one.

At the next roundabout, which direction are you willing to take?

Are you sure you have the right mix of people, processes, and technology enablers (read “competence center”) to move your IT organization to the next level?

I am always excited to start a new conversation, provided that the direction the customer wants to take is clear and there is enough accountability and commitment to kickstart a new transformation journey. Curiosity is king in finding new paths towards innovation exploration and IT excellence.

One of my favorite quotes comes from William Gibson, an author I used to read 30-something years ago before films like “The Matrix” popped up;  he coined the term “cyberspace” in his short story “Burning Chrome” and later popularized the concept in his debut novel, “Neuromancer” (1984):

“… The future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed.” -W. Gibson, on “Fresh Air”

Next-Generation Competence Center (Part I)

A Competence Center (CC) is the portion of a company that organizes and leverages business and IT knowledge for a specific purpose. People with the right competence, using documented processes and supported by appropriate tools, should be able to provide most (not all) of the answers that the internal or external customer may ask, provided that this is within the domain that the CC “owns.”

Instead of digging into evergreen definitions of CC functional models and recent updates (such as operation control centers or innovation control centers), I want to step back to explore a simple truth: the more ambitious the mission, the more organized and unique the CC should be.

Digital innovation: a new, business-critical imperative

“Every business now is a digital business”


If digitization is the process of changing from analog to digital (think of music in MP3 format), digitization is the use of digital technologies to change a business model and provide new revenue or value.

IT can play a significant role in this game, but it’s hardly in the driver’s seat. IT cannot pretend to have all the competencies needed to envision an appealing target state and to identify, provision, and deliver all the enablers and the solution mix required to sustain a complex transformation or innovation project.

Imagine you are a potential or newly hired digital innovation officer that is expected to satisfy business C-suite digital wishes.  Ask yourself: How can this company reshape its current IT department and build a CC that can be in the driver’s seat of high-impact business changes under the umbrella of a multi-year digital transformation initiative?

Without incorporating the latest emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence or blockchain, imagine that a selected digital use case has been approved after a brilliant idea on how to streamline and automate a certain end-to-end business process (e.g., predictive maintenance). Put yourself in the role of a traditional CIO or in the shoes of the IT operation or IT infrastructure manager:

  • How difficult is it to predict the ideal “system sizing” of each new/existing component in a hybrid landscape, where some systems are locally spread (IoT sensors), others are centrally controlled (MES and/or ERP), and others are managed by business partners in the cloud (SRM or CRM)?
  • Who’s going to predict expected business volumes and translate business concepts into meaningful, elementary IT concepts (e.g., transactions, documents, records) across complex information systems not under the direct control of a single owner?

Accountability for innovation is sometimes located within businesses, where the business drives and IT follows and supports. But sometimes, it is the IT organization that stimulates and drives such initiatives. Often, organizations split IT departments into two: IT operations and a project-focused CC. However, in the end, many IT team members play both sides, sometimes unofficially.

In some situations, the smartest resources are moved to the newly defined innovation team and the rest stay in their former role. The truth is that to make things work, you need multiple competencies; and in the end, silos and layers may over-complicate a dialogue that was more productive and effective earlier.

If it’s about standard skillsets and best practices, the best option is to check who on the market can supply what is needed for a reasonable price. Outsourcing is always the fastest – not necessarily the cheapest nor the best – option. This concept, known as sourcing strategy, is necessary, but not the only ingredient of a next-generation CC. It also calls for the desire to foster specific roles and skillsets because you believe that they can deliver high-impact results and leverage innovative solutions in the near future.

Let me give you a clear example of how a high-level ambition, such as leveraging artificial intelligence to increase customer profiling, can be better articulated into grades of basic to advanced enablers and capabilities that may or may not be built internally or outsourced:

  1. Business intelligence: Combine the power of the Big Data platform and human actions.
  2. Rules-based automation: Trigger actions based on predefined policies and predetermined rules.
  3. Machine learning: Advanced algorithms, or a model trained with historical data and adjusted by experts, to learn to provide insights or trigger appropriate actions.
  4. Artificial intelligence: Use self-learning models, policies, and business rules to go beyond human imagination.

A CC may need different technologies (owned platform/external services) and expert roles (with the desired sourcing mix) to target and move up into the “BI-2-AI” ladder.

In the next article in this series, we’ll step back and try to see the forest instead of focusing on a single tree. Get ready by asking yourself three key questions:

  • Which moment is my company living?
  • Where is the business going?
  • What should be the role of IT?

Before addressing the “what” and the “how,” it is best to focus on “why” a change is needed, carefully weigh the options, and then craft a plan.

Part II of this series will outline how to balance conflicting objectives like process standardization and harmonization (cost efficiency) vs. business model/process innovation (effectiveness).

What employees say to us about automation and skills restoration

There is more focus than ever on the impact of automation on work and what it will mean for jobs. There are certain types of routine work on the front lines, including analytical activities for administrative assistants and bankers, manual jobs for warehouse assistants, assembly line workers, and delivery drivers. Many tasks are likely to be automated with these tasks: for example, delivery workers now clear packets and generate automatic driving statistics.

The less-skilled routine agenda in this new world includes high skills (giving employees access to new and often highly valuable assignments in the same job) or recreating skills (which makes them able to accomplish an entirely new set of tasks). But none of these pledges is straightforward. Bringing new skills to the workplace will inevitably bring a group of stakeholders in the picture, including companies that bring back skills, government and education systems that help, and employees themselves.

We have heard from administrative groups about how they are browsing this agenda. In a survey of CEOs, for example, two-thirds (67%) said they bear responsibility for retraining employees whose jobs and jobs run the risk of not automating.

What is not heard enough in this conversation are the voices of the employees themselves. How do people performing low to middle-paying jobs think about re-skills? What do they see opportunities and challenges?

These were the questions we had started in a series of focus groups and round table discussions held with people whose jobs were more likely to be automated. My research company, Hot Spots Movement, has partnered with BritainThinks, a strategic consulting firm, and Capita, a consulting firm, digital services, and software business, to speak with people across the UK, including those who work for Capita. Our research was published in the November 2019 report.

The conversations were great. They have given us a deeper insight into the working life of front-line automation, while also highlighting key areas that require future action. We heard four main themes: the excitement about fluctuations, the need to prepare to reduce anxiety, the importance of getting change right the first time, and the effect of personal training.

The staff are excited about the possibilities

During our conversations, many people tell us that they can see or imagine the positive impact of automation on their jobs and the tasks they perform. They describe how automation has the power to remove some of the most boring and repetitive aspects of their roles.

“Automating scheduling has made my job much more efficient and faster,” said one delivery driver. “It relieved a little frustration and helped me achieve my performance goals.”

Automation means fewer manual and more intellectually challenging tasks for some. It also means more exciting work and the possibility of securing new and different jobs.

Staff need to be prepared to avoid anxiety

As we spoke to people, we learned that one of the details that really affected their experiences was the amount of opportunity they had to prepare, whether for a single automation event or for a longer-term automation path.

Employees felt that the changes worked well when they had some control over setting their own plans to manage their future options. For example, someone said, “We heard about it relatively early, and the staff welcomed it with open arms – it’s something we really need.”

However, without prior preparation and prior insight, employees left to worry and speculate about possible changes. As one person said, “We have inserted barcode into the store, so we need [writer] instead of four. That’s good; it saves money. But what happens to the other three people?”

It is imperative to help people succeed immediately

For many employees, following the path of automation means they must give up part of their jobs to robots or artificial intelligence while developing new skills to perform new tasks. Some of these new skills are simply a slight expansion of existing skills. Others require new ways of operating.

Getting to these new methods can be difficult. When everything is clicked, people feel really excited. As someone remarked, “It is satisfactory when it works – nothing is better than pressing” go “and working the way you want.” Correctly getting new changes boosted people’s confidence.

For those who did not get enough support while working, the chances of this error occurring were great. People describe how changes that have not gone smoothly weaken their enthusiasm and confidence. One of the participants in the discussion said: “When things go wrong, it was very difficult for managers to sympathize.” Technology that is not working as planned or poorly implemented has “brought in a lot of work” and undermined people’s confidence in the new systems.

E-learning does not replace personal interaction

Training budgets are tight in most companies, and nothing is more apparent than low-paid work, as it may be difficult to provide a justification for training. Therefore, it is not surprising that efforts to restore more routine skills have focused on low-cost e-learning.

This is pretty good – to some extent. In our discussions, employees said they were comfortable with e-learning, describing how they are already learning at home from video platforms like YouTube. (For example, there are popular online cooking channels teaching new skills.) Many people embrace video lessons, and we’ve heard examples of people learning and taking pride in themselves. But there was a general feeling that without the support of colleagues and managers, e-learning was not enough.

Work in the future

To take advantage of the employees’ initial excitement about automation capabilities, company leaders need to take four actions before making changes:

Build enthusiasm. Leaders need to create projects that show how jobs will change. They need to give employees an opportunity to see the benefits themselves.

Make plans in advance. Anxiety greatly affects the ability to change and learn. Leaders can reduce this by clearly describing the effects of automation and creating a path that describes how employees ’skills in their current jobs will be updated or their skills reinstated in new jobs.

Provides pressure-free operation. Leaders should help employees change correctly the first time. The people we spoke to spoke about the importance of having clear demos and the opportunity to try new technologies and responsibilities in a safe place.

Arrange continuous face to face training. Leaders need to make sure to complete e-learning with peer support groups and training.

Business Development

Business development entails tasks and processes to develop and implement growth opportunities within and between organizations. It is a subset of the fields of business, commerce and organizational theory. Business development is the creation of long-term value for an organization from customers, markets, and relationships. Business development can be taken to mean any activity by either a small or large organization, non-profit or for-profit enterprise which serves the purpose of ‘developing’ the business in some way. In addition, business development activities can be done internally or externally by a business development consultant. External business development can be facilitated through Planning Systems, which are put in place by governments to help small businesses. In addition, reputation building has also proven to help facilitate business development.


  • 1 Overview
  • 2 Background
  • 3 Professionals
  • 4 Business Development and Ethics
    • 4.1 Facilitated development
    • 4.2 Reputation building
  • 5 See also
  • 6 Notes and references


In the limited scholarly work available on the subject, business development is conceptualized as or related to discrete projects, specific modes of growth, and organizational units, activities, and practices. Sorensen integrates these different perspectives with insights from chairmen and managing directors, senior business developers, and venture capitalists from successful high-tech firms worldwide, which is adopted in the Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management:

Business development is defined as the tasks and processes concerning the analytical preparation of potential growth opportunities, and the support and monitoring of the implementation of growth opportunities, but does not include decisions on strategy and implementation of growth opportunities.


In practice, the term business development and its actor, the business developer, have evolved into many usages and applications. Today, the applications of business development and the business developer or marketer tasks across industries and countries, cover everything from IT-programmers, specialized engineers, advanced marketing or key account management activities, and sales and relations development for current and prospective customers. For this reason, it has been difficult to discern the unique features of the business development function and whether these activities are a source of profits.

Recent systematic research on the subject has outlined the contours of an emerging business development function with a unique role in the innovation management process. The business development function seems to be more matured in high-tech, and especially the pharma and biotech, industries.


The business developer is concerned with the analytical preparation of potential growth opportunities for the senior management or board of directors as well as the subsequent support and monitoring of its implementation. Both in the development phase and the implementation phase, the business developer collaborates and integrates the knowledge and feedback from the organization’s specialist functions, for example, research and development, production, marketing, and sales to assure that the organization is capable of implementing the growth opportunity successfully. The business developers’ tools to address the business development tasks are the business model answering “how do we make money” and its analytical backup and roadmap for implementation, the business plan.

Business development professionals frequently have had earlier experience in sales, financial services, investment banking or management consulting, and delivery; although some find their route to this area by climbing the corporate ladder in functions such as operations management. Skill sets and experience for business-development specialists usually consist of a mixture of the following (depending on the business requirements):

  • Sales
  • Finance
  • Marketing
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Legal
  • Strategic management
  • Proposal management or capture management

The “pipeline” refers to the flow of potential clients which a company has started developing. Business development staff assign to each potential client in the pipeline a percent chance of success, with projected sales-volumes attached. Planners can use the weighted average of all the potential clients in the pipeline to project staffing to manage the new activity when finalized. Enterprises usually support pipelines with some kind of customer relationship management tool or database, either web-based solution or an in-house system. Sometimes business development specialists manage and analyze the data to produce sales management information. Such management of information could include:

  • reasons for wins/losses
  • progress of opportunities in relation to the sales process
  • top performing salespeople/sales channels
  • sales of services/products

For larger and well-established companies, especially in technology-related industries, the term “business development” often refers to setting up and managing strategic relationships and alliances with other, third-party companies. In these instances, the companies may leverage each other’s expertise, technologies or other intellectual property to expand their capacities for identifying, researching, analyzing and bringing to market new businesses and new products. Business development focuses on the implementation of the strategic business plan through equity financing, acquisition/divestiture of technologies, products, and companies, plus the establishment of strategic partnerships where appropriate.

Business development is to be thought of as a marketing tactic. The objectives include branding, expansion in markets, new user acquisition, and awareness. However, the main function of business development is to utilize partners in selling to the right customers. Creating opportunities for value to be ongoing in the long-term is very important. To be successful in business development the partnership must be built on strong relationships.

Business Development and Ethics

Facilitated development

Business Development is affected by external factors. “Planning Systems” are systems set in place in order to regulate businesses. In many cases, ruling agencies deem the necessary for business survival. There is a section of Business that is dedicated to facilitating ethical business development in developing countries. In the early 2000s, Business Ethics was dedicated to helping the Businesses in need that are in these countries. However, owing to lots of backlash from critics, they have changed their focus into helping businesses that are going to help the most people develop. These policies have improved the quality of life of the people. However, this facilitation changes the norms and, in turn, harms some groups. In order to enforce the new policies in an ethical manner Business Ethicists have created a cost-benefit analysis, placing an emphasis on basic necessities. These concerns have become so great that Business Ethicists have created a new department called Development Ethics. Now, instead of simply helping developing businesses, international business developers have begun ensuring that the companies keep basic human rights in mind. This especially applies to countries where the laws are not so strict and allow for abuse to take place. These development policies now have to follow the criteria that Penz created, consisting of: security, empowerment, rights, equity, integrity, and cultural freedom. The idea of providing people with human rights in order to facilitate business development can be seen through the rapid development of China in the last few decades. The policies that were implemented in the last couple decades coincide with these developments. In the 1980s, government policies facilitated the rise in literacy rate and education. The following decade, healthcare coverage increased significantly. This development was not originally seen as monetary capital, but instead, it was seen as human capital. With more workers able to bring skill and maximum effort to their workplace, companies were able to develop extremely rapidly.

Reputation building

With companies becoming more and more conscious of ethical practices, closely watching themselves to avoid scrutiny, a company’s reputation has become a great concern. Ethical business practices are closely tied with reputation which makes it essential to follow ethical guidelines if a company is looking to build their reputation. In fact, Businesses that develop quickly and successfully have tendencies to show honesty, impartiality, and service to all of their stakeholders. In order for a company to be considered “ethical”, it must cater to the needs of the customer, keeping their best interest in mind. This will influence customers to make repeated purchases and lead to more profit. In order for a company to build a strong reputation with their suppliers, it is crucial for them to focus on impartial business interactions and developing long relationships. These relationships can lead to mutually-beneficial business deals for both the company and its supplier. With the employees, they must take their interests into consideration and facilitate teamwork as opposed to rigorous competition. This ensures that the company will keep their most loyal and dedicated employees for as long as possible. Funding for further development can rise when a company is able to develop strong relationship with each stakeholder individually, and ethically. This is based on the concept of reciprocation, which states how in order for social change to take place between groups of people, trust must be built between them through mutually beneficial actions. This can be supported through the results of a questionnaire study that was conducted on technology industries in GTSM and TSE. In addition, in order for a company to practice business ethics, and ensure strong business development, it is essential to maintain a positive relationship with the environment. With concerns about the recent decline of the environment increasing, stakeholders have become more involved in efforts to preserve resources and a negative impact on the environment brings about risks of damaging stakeholder relationships.

See also