Võrgustikes ja nende olulisuses organisatsiooni tähenduses ilmselt palju kahtlejaid ei ole. Aga kuidas erinevates võrgustikes osalemine mõjutab organisatsiooni tulemuslikkus, sellest ei ole väga palju lugeda võimalik. Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst võiks huvi pakkuda nii kõikidele organisatsioonidest ja strateegiatest huvitatutele kui poliitikakujundajatele.
A central theme in strategic management is identifying the origins of variation in firm performance. In this vein, core studies in a rich research stream have decomposed the variance of firm (strictly speaking, business segment) performance into industry, corporation, business segment, and year effects (e.g., Brush & Bromiley, 1997; Chang & Singh, 2000; McGahan & Porter, 1997; Rumelt, 1991; Schmalensee, 1985; Sharapov, Kattuman, Rodriguez, & Velazquez, 2020; Vanneste, 2017).
Vihjed viljakatele perspektiividele:
The relational view (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Dyer, Singh, & Hesterly, 2018) and subsequently the networks view (e.g., Gulati, 1998; Gulati et al., 2000) have expanded the lens of the strategy field and are viewed as critical extensions of the resource-based view.
Networks provide reliable, novel, and timely information (Burt, 1992), allow the pooling of interfirm resources and capabilities (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Uzzi, 1996), and enable inter-organizational endorsements needed to alleviate the liability of newness (Stuart, Hoang, & Hybels, 1999). Moreover, membership in a network of external alliance relations allows firms to generate additional opportunities by enabling new partner search under conditions of uncertainty and sanction member firms’ opportunistic behaviors (Coleman, 1994; Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Rowley et al., 2005).
Autorid seavad eesmärke:
Accordingly, in this article, we empirically tackle the question: how much of the variance in firm performance can be attributed to the firm’s alliance network? And by extension, how much explanatory power in firm performance has been left on the table by leaving networks out?
Most recently, Vanneste (2017), in his meta-analysis, found the industry’s portion of performance variance to be between 6 and 10%, the corporate parent’s between 11% and 16%, and the business segment’s between 30 and 42%, further confirming the dominance of businesssegment effects in explaining the variance in performance.
A first step in the examination of corporate network-level effects is to clearly delineate the network affiliation of a corporate parent firm. Unlike the well-defined keiretsu networks in Japan (Caves & Uekusa, 1976; Gerlach, 1992), most firms in the U.S. merely form alliances rather than business groups.
Mis kasu võiks võrgustikus osalemisest saada?
Membership in a network community allows firms to tap into local knowledge pools using ties, marked by short network distance and density, to other member firms (Ahuja, 2000). Having easy access to such a collective knowledge scaffolding may amplify the recombinatorial opportunities available to the network members due to complementary knowledge inputs.
Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks vihjed kokkuvõttest:
We find that the network to which the firms belong explain roughly 11% of the variance in business segment profitability, underscoring a salient complement to conventional empirical models of variance decomposition. […] However, an equally important approach would be to keep in mind the value-creating potential of alliance networks in the managerial quest for competitive advantage. Additionally, taken to its extreme, networks may become more relevant in the digital era in which the industry boundaries are blurring (Raskino & Waller, 2016). In fact, in such cases the ecosystem can be understood as complementing firm membership in networks (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Nohria & Garcia-Pont, 1991).
Kumar, P., Liu, X., & Zaheer, A. (2022) How much does the firm’s alliance network matter?. Strategic Management Journal.