Relationship and networking strategy tools: characterizing the IMP toolbox

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the relationship and networking strategy tools in the IMP literature. It proposes six dimensions for characterizing such tools: approach to tool development, level (and layer) of analysis, perspective of interaction, activities of network strategizing, external or internal orientation and use for “strategizing on” vs “strategizing in” relationships and networks. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a manual qualitative content analysis approach and an inductive approach, well suited for extracting relationship and networking strategy tools due to their implicit and dispersed nature. Findings – The paper presents an IMP toolbox comprising a wide variety of relationship and networking strategy tools emphasizing interconnectedness, interdependence and limited managerial autonomy, as well as an analysis of how identified tools are positioned along each of the six proposed dimensions. Research limitations/implications – This paper contributes a conceptual framework with a vocabulary to content analyze and discuss relationship and networking strategy tools in IMP research. Practical implications – The IMP toolbox may be a useful point of departure for managers who feel a need for developing and using a mix of tools for strategizing in business relationships and networks. Originality/value – The paper instills a strategy tool lens in the IMP literature and foregrounds strategizing concepts and techniques that were previously difficult to attend to for both researchers and practitioners.

Strategic practices of subsidiary positioning in business networks

“…Our findings hold two key notions. First, we build on the existing literature on strategy in business networks (e.g., Jüttner & Schlange, 1996;Holmen & Pedersen, 2003;Baraldi et al, 2007;Harrison & Prenkert, 2009;Hulthén & Torvatn, 2014;Cheng & Holmen, 2015;Mota et al, 2016;Szalkai & Magyar, 2017) and show how positioning of a subsidiary in its local markets is more than a question of internal organizational design (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989) or of handling the external relationships (Andersson et al, 2002). Instead it is a question of strategic practices, i.e.…”

“…Furthermore, networks are constantly shaped by the actions and interactions with other actors to influence and change the network positions (Håkansson & Snehota, 1989). Strategymaking in a network context is thus interactive by its nature and the strategy itself an emerging pattern of activities both with and without managerial intention in its creation (Baraldi et al, 2007;Jüttner & Schlange, 1996;Cheng and Holmen, 2015).…”

Developing relationship management strategies in a network context

“…To create value for the customers, irms need to interact with other irms to have access to various resources that are out of their immediate control (Frostenson & Prenkert, 2015). Therefore, understanding the irms' position and their relationship with various actors from the network perspective is a crucial step in developing appropriate types of many strategic decisions (C. Cheng & Holmen, 2015;Mills et al, 2004).…”

“…This point of view encourages irms to extend their focus from a simple linear SC to the whole network while also taking the network relationships into consideration (Chan et al, 2018). Thus, to exploit the full potential of these valuable resources within the network, the concept of RMS needs to be incorporated into the context of network relations (C. Cheng & Holmen, 2015;Wilkinson & Young, 2002).…”

“…This means SCM goes beyond the closest actors and considers the SC relationships from the multitier perspective. A irm is part of the overall network, and its business strategies depend on its embeddedness in the network structure and how it interacts with other participants (C. Cheng & Holmen, 2015). Accordingly, in analyzing the irms' business environment, they should not be considered in isolation, but as being embedded within networks (Ritter, Wilkinson, & Johnston, 2004;Soosay & Hyland, 2015;Wu & Birge, 2014).…”