How Organizational Field Networks Shape Interorganizational Tie-Formation Rates

Abstract

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Network Orchestration: Vodafone’s Journey to Globalization

“…Kenis and Knoke, 2002) and the role of emergent strategy and unintended consequences of strategic change (e.g. Balogun and Johnson, 2005;Boisot and McKelvey, 2010), is a more representative way of understanding the way in which today's MNCs coordinate and integrate globallydispersed capabilities.…”

“…What is striking in the case is that fostering network stability was not a critical task of the network orchestrator (cf. Kenis and Knoke, 2002). The interdependencies established among network members, or local operating companies of Vodafone and Ericsson, through GCSM meetings and virtual work stream activities convinced members of a benefit in maintaining their links.…”

Levels of Multiplexity in Entrepreneur’s Networks: Implications for Dynamism and Value Creation

“…Generating such synergies may be achieved by partners "pooling their idiosyncratic and complementary resources" (Schreiner, Kale & Corsten, 2009, p. 1411, which results in increasingly durable relationships (Jack & Anderson, 2002;Beckman et al, 2004). The utility and durability of these relationships then increases until it becomes more feasible for additional resources to be sourced from other relationships (Kenis & Knoke, 2002). Such synergies are evidenced in many strategic alliances.…”

“…Such collective synergies may also catalyze greater support, inertia and collective action (Aldrich, Rosen & Woodward, 1977;Dubini & Aldrich, 1991), and thus perpetuate the exploration of collective synergies. Closed multiplexity also has drawbacks because there is greater redundancy of content and connections, and thus wasted time and effort in maintaining non-essential relationships (Burt, 1992;Kenis & Knoke, 2002;Hoffmann, 2007).…”

“…For example "market data, technical knowledge, new support services, or capital through favorable payment terms are added to the initial transfer of a component part or materials from a vendor to the entrepreneurial firm" (Larson & Starr, 1993, p. 10). Each additional layer of exchange increases the value of the relationship and increases the interdependence between the entrepreneur and the partner, until a point at which it becomes more efficient to access additional resources via other relationships (Kenis & Knoke, 2002;Beckman, Haunschild & Phillips, 2004). Still under-researched, is the reality that the exchanges may be layered across relationships with multiple partners.…”