Determining Degree of Complexity in Different Interfirm Relations : Formal versus Informal Relations of Authoritative System

• Autorzy: Lokhman Hakim Bin Osman

Warianty tytułu

Kennzeichnung des Komplexitätsniveaus in Verschiedenen Relationen : in Formellen versus Informellen Relationen und in Auutoritativen Systemen

Wyznaczanie poziomu złożoności w różnych relacjach : formalnych versus nieformalnych w systemach autoratywnych

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: Inter-organizational network complexity exists in many forms. Depending on the type of network relationship, we could see different pattern of complexity emerged from the complex interorganizational relations. Yet managing them has taken rather a monotonous approach. However, no previous study has attempted how this complexity may appear in the different type of network structure.
Methods: Using the social network analysis methodology, this study embarks on the objective in determining the structure of complexity of inter-organizational structure base on the different type of network relationships.
Results and conclusions: Findings of this study indicated that firms' degree of complexity emerged from the firms' involvement differs in the different type of inter-organizational relationships that they are embedded in. Implication of the findings highlights the importance of network management base on type of inter-organizational relations and selective resource allocations management for inter-organizational network. (original abstract)

Wstęp: Międzyorganizacyjna złożoność sieci przejawia się w wielu postaciach. Uwzględniając typ relacji sieciowych, można mówić o wieloelementowym wzorze powiązań związków międzyorganizacyjnych. Niemniej jednak można je analizować w dość schematyczny sposób. Mimo to, brak jest badań jak ta złożoność przejawia się w różnego rodzaju typach struktur sieciowych.
Metody: Stosując metodologię analizy sieci społecznych, przeanalizowano strukturę zależności międzyorganizacyjnych w zależności od rodzaju powiązań sieciowych.
Wyniki i wnioski: Wyniki otrzymane w trakcie analizy wykazują poziom złożoności w zależności od powiązań danej organizacji z innymi uczestnikami. Sugerują one istotność zarządzania sieciowego zależnościami międzyorganizacyjnymi oraz selektywną alokację zasobów do obszaru zarządzania sieciowego. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Dependency networks; Network relationships; Complexity of the organization; Network analysis

PL

Sieci zależności; Powiązania sieciowe; Złożoność organizacji; Analiza sieciowa

• Czasopismo: LogForum
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 13
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 195--208

Twórcy

autor

Lokhman Hakim Bin Osman

• Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia

Bibliografia

• Abraham M., 2009. Why reputation is not always beneficial: Tolerance and opportunism in business networks. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 908-915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.05.010.
• Abrahamson E., Rosenkopf L., 1997. Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation. Organization Science, 8(3), 289-309.
• Ahuja G., 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667105
• Borgatti Li, 2009 On Social Network Analysis in a Supply Chain Context. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (2), 5-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03166.x
• Borgatti S, Molina J., 2003. Ethical and strategic issues in organizational social network analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (3), 337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886303258111
• Borgatti S.P., Jones C., Everett M.G. 1998. Network measures of social capital. Semantic Pajek Networks Software 21 (2), 27-36.
• Chan G.K.L., 2015. Social networks as social capital for eco-tourism in Malaysia: A preliminary sociological study of the Langkawi Geopark, Geografia Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11, 13, 156-164.
• Choi K.Y., 2008. Structural Embeddedness and Supplier Management: A Network Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 44 (4), 5-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00069.x
• Choi Krause, 2006. The supply base and its complexity: Implications for transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 637-52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.07.002
• Coleman J.S., 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94, 95-120. The University of Chicago Press.
• Corteville L., Sun M., 2009. An interorganizational social network analysis of the Michigan diabetes outreach networks: Measuring relationships in community networks, Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing, MI.
• Ford E.W., Wells R., Bailey B., 2004. Sustainable network advantages: A game theoretic approach to community-based health care coalitions, Health Care Management Research, 29, 2, 159.
• Freeman L.C., 1979. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification, Social Networks, 1, 3, 215-39.
• Granovetter 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 481-510.
• Gulati R., 1995. Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances, The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 85-112.
• Gulati R., Gargiulo M., 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104, 5, 1439-93.
• Knoke D., Kuklinski J., 1982. Network analysis, Sage Publications, Inc.
• Krackhardt D., 1999. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations, Research In The Sociology of Organizations, 16, 1999, 183-210.
• Krauss M., Mueller N., Luke D., 2004. Interorganizational relationships within state tobacco control networks: a social network analysis, Preventing Chronic Disease, 1, 4, A08.
• Lusher D., 2011, Masculinity, educational achievement and social status: a social network analysis, Gender and Education, 23, 6, 655-75.
• Lusher D., Robins G., 2010. A social network analysis of hegemonic and other masculinities, The Journal of Men's Studies, 18, 1, 22-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1801.22
• Lusher D., Robins G., Kremer P., 2010. The application of social network analysis to team sports, Measurement In Physical Education And Exercise Science, 14, 4, 211-24.
• McEvily B., Perrone V., Zaheer A., 2003. Trust as an organizing principle, Organization Science, 91-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814
• McEvily B., Zaheer A., 1999. Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 12, 1133-56.
• Osman L.H.B., Hakim L., 2015. Network Communication Model: Propensity Of Network Inter-Connectivity Based On Types Of Network Relations. Management and Marketing Journal, 13(2), 274-294.
• Osman L.H., 2016. Organizational embeddedness and its effect on performance: An exploratory analysis for Malaysian business managers. Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 12(2), 212-222.
• Osman L.H., Ahmad A., Omar N.A., 2015. Analyzing The Impact Of Firm's Embeddedness In A Centralized Supply Network Structure On Relational Capital Outcomes. Review of Economic and Business Studies, 55.
• Podolny J.M., Page K.L., 1998. Network forms of organization, Annual Research of Sociology, 57-76.
• Powell W., 1996. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization, in: Te al (ed.), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks Understanding Governance RAW Rhodes,, Buckingham, Open University Press, 265-76.
• Reagans R., Zuckerman E., McEvily B., 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 1, 101-33.
• Robins G., Pattison P., Kalish Y., Lusher D., 2007. An introduction to exponential random graph models for social networks, Social Networks, 29, 2, 173-91.
• Robins G., Pattison P., Wang P., 2009. Closure, connectivity and degree distributions: Exponential random graph (p*) models for directed social networks, Social Networks, 31, 2, 105-17.
• Scott J., 1988. Social network analysis. Sociology 22 (1), 109.
• Uzzi B., 1997. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1), 35-67.
• Wang P., Robins G., Pattison P., 2006. Pnet: A program for the simulation and estimation of exponential random graph models. University of Melbourne.
• Womack J.P., 1990. Machine that changed the world. Scribner.
• Wu Z., Choi T.Y., Rungtusanatham M.J., 2010. Supplier-supplier relationships in buyer-supplier-supplier triads: Implications for supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management 28 (2), 115-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.09.002

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17270/J.LOG.2017.2.7