Multidimensional Analysis of Embeddedness and Cooperation in a Cluster : a Literature and Empirical Study

• Autorzy: Marzena Frankowska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Cooperation of enterprises within inter-organizational networks is a complex research and cognitive area due to the multidimensional nature of cooperation, which is often a mixture of motives, intentions, goals and operating conditions. Literature studies have revealed the so far very meager and scattered work in the field of embedding cooperation between enterprises in inter-organizational networks, which definitely does not sufficiently describe the impact of the context of collaboration on enterprise cooperation. The main aim of the article was to understand and explain, on the basis of the concept of embeddedness, whether there are relations between the participation of enterprises in a cluster-type inter-organizational network (embeddedness and its dimensions) and their cooperation in the cluster. Implementation of research goals required the development of a research process covering three stages. The essence and dimensions of embeddedness of cooperating enterprises in inter-organizational networks (structural, relational, social, positional, territorial, geographical, spatial, institutional, ecological, political and temporal) were determined. Next, a survey of European cluster managers (study 1) on cooperation in a cluster was carried out in order to better understand the dimensions of embeddedness of enterprises cooperating in clusters (qualitative research, IDI). In the next stage, a survey of cluster enterprises was carried out (study 2) to determine the relations between their embeddedness in the cluster and cooperation with other cluster companies (quantitative research, CAWI). Then, triangulation of data sources, research methods and context was used. As a result, it was established that four dimensions of embeddedness are of key importance for cooperating enterprises embedded in the cluster, namely: structural, geographical, institutional and relational. Moreover, the results of the research show that there is a positive relation between embedding enterprises in the cluster and their cooperation. (original abstract)

Współpraca przedsiębiorstw w sieciach międzyorganizacyjnych jest złożonym obszarem badawczym i poznawczym ze względu na wielowymiarowy charakter współpracy, na którą często składają się motywy, zamiary, cele i warunki działania. Badania literaturowe ujawniły dotychczas bardzo skąpą i rozproszoną wiedzę w zakresie osadzania współpracy przedsiębiorstw w sieciach międzyorganizacyjnych, co zdecydowanie nie odzwierciedla w wystarczającym stopniu wpływu kontekstu na współdziałanie przedsiębiorstw. Głównym celem artykułu jest zrozumienie i wyjaśnienie, w oparciu o koncepcję osadzenia, czy istnieją relacje między uczestnictwem przedsiębiorstw w sieci międzyorganizacyjnej typu klaster a współpracą w ramach danej sieci klastrowej. Realizacja celów badawczych wymagała opracowania procesu badawczego obejmującego trzy etapy. Określono istotę i wymiary osadzenia współpracujących przedsiębiorstw w sieciach międzyorganizacyjnych (strukturalnych, relacyjnych, społecznych, pozycyjnych, terytorialnych, geograficznych, przestrzennych, instytucjonalnych, ekologicznych, politycznych i czasowych). Następnie przeprowadzono wywiady bezpośrednie wśród europejskich menedżerów klastrów (badanie 1) na temat współpracy w klastrze w celu lepszego zrozumienia wymiarów osadzenia przedsiębiorstw współpracujących w klastrach (badania jakościowe, IDI). W kolejnym etapie przeprowadzono badanie przedsiębiorstw w klastrze (badanie 2) w celu określenia relacji między ich zakorzenieniem w klastrze a współpracą z innymi firmami klastra (badania ilościowe, CAWI). Następnie zastosowano triangulację źródeł danych, metod badawczych i kontekstu. W rezultacie ustalono, że cztery wymiary osadzenia mają kluczowe znaczenie dla przedsiębiorstw współpracujących w klastrze. Jest to osadzenie strukturalne, geograficzne, instytucjonalne i relacyjne. Ponadto wyniki badań pokazują, że istnieje pozytywna zależność pomiędzy włączeniem przedsiębiorstw do klastra a ich współpracą. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Business cluster; Network organisations; Cooperation; Cooperation of enterprises; Manager

PL

Klastry; Organizacje sieciowe; Współpraca; Współdziałanie przedsiębiorstw; Menedżer

• Czasopismo: Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI)
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 16
• Numer: nr 3 Proximity and Innovation in Clusters: How Close, How Far?
• Strony: 11--45

Twórcy

autor

Marzena Frankowska

• University of Szczecin, Poland

Bibliografia

• Abell, P.T., Felin, T., & Foss, N.J. (2008). Building microfoundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1413
• Balland, P.A., Belso-Martínez, J.A., & Morrison, A. (2016). The dynamics of technical and business knowledge networks in industrial clusters: Embeddedness, status, or proximity?. Economic Geography, 92(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2015.1094370
• Bembenek, B., Frankowska, M., & Havernikova, K. (2016). Cluster policy as a determining factor for development of World Class-Clusters. Humanities and Social Sciences, 23(4), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.7862/rz.2016.hss.59
• Bergsma, W. (2013). A bias-correction for Cramér's V and Tschuprow's T. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 42 (3), 323-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jkss.2012.10.002
• Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Cerceau, J., Mat, N., & Junqua, G. (2018). Territorial embeddedness of natural resource management: A perspective through the implementation of industrial ecology. Geoforum, 89, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.001
• Chiffoleau, Y. (2009). From politics to co- operation: The dynamics of embeddedness in alternative food supply chains. Sociologia Ruralis, 49 (3), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00491.x
• Chiu, Y.T.H. & Lee, T.L. (2012). Structural embeddedness and innovation performance: Capitalizing on social brokerage in high-tech clusters. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 337-348. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.3.337
• Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Czakon, W. (2012). Paradoks osadzenia sieci - uwarunkowania metodologiczne. Zarządzanie strategiczne Quo vadis?. Prace Naukowe WWSZiP, 22(2), 237-244.
• Czernek, K., & Marszałek, P. (2015). Koncepcja zakorzenienia społecznego i jej przydatność w badaniach ekonomicznych. Ekonomista, 5, 625-649.
• Czyżycki, R., Hundert, M., & Klóska, R. (2006). Wybrane Zagadnienia ze Statystyki. Szczecin: Economicus.
• Denzin, N.K. (1978). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106
• Dayasindhu, N. (2002). Embeddedness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: A case study of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22(9) 551-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00098-0
• Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Analyzing Social Capital in Context: A Guide to Using Qualitative Methods and Data. Washington: World Bank Institute.
• Dyer, J.H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
• Frankowska, M. (2018). Współdziałanie Przedsiębiorstw w Klastrowych Łańcuchach Dostaw. Warszawa: CeDeWu.
• Frankowska, M. (2019). The role of third party cluster managers in strengthening cooperation of cluster companies. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance ECMLG 2019 (pp. 141-149). UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, Reading.. https://doi.org/10.34190/MGL.19.068
• Frankowska, M., Myszak, J.M., & Jedliński, M. (2016). Cluster policy report. V4 cluster policies and their influence on the viability of cluster organisations. Cluster policy in Poland. Żlin: Visegrad Fund. Retrieved 10 June, 2020, from http://klastr- portal.cz/Resources/Upload/Home/ke-stazeni/v4clusterpol/v4clusterpol-reports//v4cp_cluster- policy_poland.pdf
• Gancarczyk, M., & Bohatkiewicz, J. (2018). Research streams in cluster upgrading. A Literature review, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(4), 17 -42. https://doi.org/10.7341/20181441
• Golub, B., & Jackson, M.O. (2012). How homophily affects the speed of learning and best response dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1287- 1338. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs021
• Goodman, D. (2003). The quality 'turn' and alternative food practices: Reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 1-7.
• Gopaldas, A. (2016). A Front-to-back guide to writing a qualitative research article. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(1), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-08-2015- 0074
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
• Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis, Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939203500101
• Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from?, American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439- 1493.
• Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J.Å. (1998). The role of embeddedness in the evolution of business networks. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(3), 187-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221 (98)80009-2
• Harrison, A., & van Hoek, R. (2008). Logistics Management and Strategy: Competing through the Supply Chain. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Helfer, M., Waldis, S., Drewello, H., Kiehlmann, F., Bouzar, M., Hansch-Hervieux, V., & Maillier, C. (2014). Résultats de l'atelier international "Management de cluster", Compte rendu de la journée du 14 ai 2014 á Bâle, Document de travail 1/2014, Centre européen de compétences et de recherche Management de Cluster, Université de Strasbourg.
• Ingstrup, M.B. (2010). The role of cluster facilitators. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 4(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2010.035329
• Ingstrup, M.B. (2013). Facilitating different types of clusters. Management Revue, 24(2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1688/1861- 9908_mrev_2013_02_Ingstrup
• Janasz, W. (2016). Wyzwania i dylematy zarządzania współczesnymi organizacjami. In J. Wiśniewska, & K. Janasz (Eds.), Zarządzanie Przedsiębiorstwem Przemysłowym we Współczesnej Gospodarce (pp. 17-39). Warszawa: CeDeWu.
• Johannisson, B., Ramirez-Pasillas, M., & Karlsson, G. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of local interfirm networks: A leverage for business creation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14(4), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620210142020
• Jones, C., Hesterly, W., & Borgatti, S. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022109
• Kamath, A., & Cowan, R. (2015). Social cohesion and knowledge diffusion: Understanding the embeddedness- homophily association. Socio-Economic Review, 13(4), 723-746. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwu024
• Lebeau, Y., & Bennion, A. (2014). Forms of embeddedness and discourses of engagement: A case study of universities in their local environment. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 278-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709491
• Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
• Lin, H.M., Huang, C.H., Lin, C.P., & Hsu, W.C. (2012). How to manage strategic alliances in OEM-based industrial clusters: network embeddedness and formal governance mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.04.003
• Lis, A. M. (2019). The significance of proximity in cluster initiatives. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 29 (3), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-08-2018-0050
• Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72, 293-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/144402
• Martinez-del-Rio, J., & Cespedes-Lorente, J. (2014). Competitiveness and legitimation: The logic of companies going green in geographical clusters. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 131-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2073- 3.
• McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133-1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0266(199912)20:12<1133::AID-SMJ74>3.0.CO;2-7
• Mitręga, M., & Zolkiewski, J. (2012). Negative consequences of deep relationships with suppliers: An exploratory study in Poland. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 886-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.023
• Molina- Morales, F.X., Capo-Vicedo, J., & Martínez-Fernández, M.T. (2012). Social capital in industrial districts: Influence of the strength of ties and density of the network on the sense of belonging to the district. Papers in Regional Science, 92(4), 773-790. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435- 5957.2012.00463.x
• Moody, J., & White, D.R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68, 103-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088904
• Morgulis-Yakushev, S., & Solvell, O. (2017). Enhancing dynamism in clusters: A model for evaluating cluster organizations' bridge-building activities across cluster gaps. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 27(2), 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-02-2016-0015
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242- 266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
• Nyholm, M. (2011). Activation of Supply Relationships: A Study of Main Providers in the Turku Logistics Cluster. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
• Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100-130. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
• Pelletier, C., Vieru, D., & Croteau, A.M. (2017). The interorganizational relationships process: An asset orchestration mechanisms perspective in an SME context. 50th Americas Conference on Information Systems (HICSS) (pp. 5531-5540). Big Island, Hawaii, United States. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.668
• Penker, M. (2006). Mapping and measuring the ecological embeddedness of food supply chains. Geoforum, 37(3), 368-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.001
• Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Boston: Harvard University Press.
• Sobolewska, O. (2020). Knowledge-oriented business process management as a catalyst to the existence of network organizations. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 16(1), 107-132. https://doi.org/10.7341/20201614
• Stańczyk, S. (2015). Triangulacja - łączenie metod badawczych i urzetelnienie badań. In W. Czakon (Ed.), Podstawy Metodologii Badań w Naukach o Zarządzaniu (pp.243-265). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2016). Eksplorować czy eksploatować relacje międzyorganizacyjne?, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 420, 280-299.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
• Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399
• Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
• Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the market of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64, 481-505. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657252
• Van de Ven, A.H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 211-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90028-4
• Vlados, Ch., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019). Business ecosystems policy in Stra.Tech.Man terms: The case of the Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(3), 163-197. https://doi.org/10.7341/20191536
• Wijayatunga, P. (2016). A geometric view on Pearson's correlation coefficient and a generalization of it to non-linear dependencies. Ratio Mathematica, 30, 3-21. https://doi.org/10.23755/rm.v30i1.5
• Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
• Xu, L., & Beamon, B.M. (2006). Supply chain coordination and cooperation mechanisms: An attribute-based approach. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 4, 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2006.04201002.x

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7341/20201631