Research into how knowledge is created and integrated in networks has made substantial progress over the past decades. The topic has spawned so much interest that recently more quantitative reviews using meta-analytic techniques have emerged to further our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of knowledge transfer within and across companies (e.g. Van Wijk et al., 2008). Research into networks has developed under three banners. The thrust of social network analysis is that every organization is a social network, and that a social network can be used to disseminate knowledge and information. Alliance networks have been established as a governance mode to gain access to knowledge unavailable within a firm’s boundaries. Organizational networks have emerged to facilitate the management of that knowledge internally.
Despite the insights and understanding gained, a substantial number of avenues for future research still remain. Most promising future research avenues essentially provide further cross-fertilization across the three network types, and apply concepts employed to examine one type to further understand the functioning of another. One such concept is the role of governance mode and organizational structure. For example, Stuart (2003) illustrated how a firm’s structural and relational position may influence its choice for the governance structures used in its alliances. However, much remains to be discovered. For example, to co-develop products alliance partners may have to make relation-specific investments (Dyer and Singh, 1998). Such investments may lead partner firms to behave opportunistically and a governance structure that creates control. They also signal trust and may increase a firm’s relational capital, requiring less control through governance. Likewise, received insights indicate that a strong structural position achieved through centrality provides knowledge access (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998; Van Wijk et al., 2008). Actors may, however, be central in a strong administrative hierarchy, as a CEO or headquarters is, or may be central in an organizational network with only one layer, where an individual other than the CEO or a unit other than headquarters may be the most central actor. In that vein, the informational benefits accruing to a central actor may be moderated by organization structure. In that vein, the differentiation of units as to their structural and relational embeddedness and organization structure influence the ability of firms to develop alliance capability.
Studies may also incorporate other organizational characteristics. Typically, nodes in organizational networks are conceptualized as units, but they can also be products, activities, resources, and knowledge. Since each of the dispersed organizational units controls unique knowledge and resources giving rise to differentiated activities and abilities, these classes of variables are related to each other in the overall structure of the network. Units in an organizational network manufacturing a single product for a local market are more likely to perform specialist activities and to develop deep knowledge of those activities. In contrast, units producing multiple products for multiple markets are likely to develop broad knowledge covering the variety of activities they perform. Since absorptive capacity is dependent on the presence of a relevant knowledge base and the degree to which the knowledge bases of two units are overlapping, how do specialist and generalist units absorb knowledge from each other? Absorptive capacity was found to be an important determinant of knowledge transfer in social (Ahuja, 2000a), alliance (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998), and organizational networks (Jansen et al., 2006; Szulanski, 2000; Tsai, 2001). Since absorptive capacity is relative and partner-specific, firms face a trade-off in investing in deep, specialist, and broad, generalist knowledge with a variety of actors both within and outside organizational borders. Argote et al. (2003) argue that knowledge transfer within is easier than across organizational boundaries. If absorptive capacity is so central to knowledge transfer regardless of organizational boundary, which measures do firms with an organizational network take to foster the development of absorptive capacity, especially in cases where a firm has many specialist units with non-overlapping knowledge? Since it can trace individual actors, social network analysis may prove a valuable tool to advance our understanding of the interplay between alliance and organizational networks, provided concepts are incorporated that are typically employed outside the realm of social networks.
A related prospect for future research is further examination of barriers to knowledge transfer and learning in networks. While the most frequently cited studies of knowledge transfer address a variety of facilitators and barriers, much remains to be understood. Darr et al. (1995) found that knowledge was shared between stores of the same franchisee, but not of different franchisees. Since franchisees generally operate under the same brand and organization, boundaries that influence knowledge transfer here are likely legal. Another reason may be power issues, which potentially are a critical barrier to knowledge transfer (Andersson et al., 2007). In other frequently cited research, absorptive capacity (Mowery et al., 1996), causal ambiguity and arduous relationships among interacting parties have been found to be among the most important barriers to knowledge transfer (Szulanski, 1996; 2000). Geography may also play an important role. Intraplant transfers were found more common than interplant transfers, especially when the geographical dispersion of plants increased (Argote et al., 1990; see also, Schulz, 2001). Research in this area may be informed by studies on regional networks and clusters, in which firms have chosen to be co-located in order to allow knowledge to be transferred (Arikan, 2009).
We also still do not understand the extent to which firms with an extensive alliance network operate with organizational networks more often and more efficaciously than firms with less developed alliance networks, and vice versa. Firms endowed with a substantial amount of alliances increasingly develop alliance capabilities that allow them to create more value as experience in allying and in transferring knowledge increases (Anand and Khanna, 2000; Simonin, 1997). Coordinating alliance partners facilitates the creation of such capabilities (cf. Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Hoffmann, 2005; Sarkar et al., 2009), but also requires an organization equipped with systems and processes to share knowledge (Kale and Singh, 2007).
Likewise, knowing how to operate an organizational network may make firms more adept to network in alliance portfolios as well. This also raises the question as to whether the components that make up alliance capability are developed simultaneously or sequentially. Firms that have an organizational network in place may have developed a coordination capability that enables them to more efficiently and effectively create new alliance capabilities because that capability can be applied to coordinate alliance partners as well.
Another promising future research avenue involves exploring how the organization of knowledge in various networks contributes to organizational ambidexterity. Studies define ambidexterity as the ability to both exploit existing and explore new knowledge and have typically focused on its organizational antecedents (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). For example, studies have examined how leadership (Jansen et al., 2008), formal and informal integration mechanisms (Jansen et al., 2009), cross-functional interfaces, and decision-making authority (Mom et al., 2009) influence organizational ambidexterity. Since many antecedents that have been studied differentiate organizational networks, such studies suggest that these networks foster ambidexterity. Recently, studies have examined how alliance networks contribute to organizational ambidexterity, and have done so borrowing concepts from social network studies such as the role of prior (Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006), bridging, and strong ties (Tiwana, 2008). Research on how the organization of knowledge in networks leads to ambidexterity is, however, still in its infancy, which endorses studies seeking to understand how organizations use the three network types concurrently in becoming ambidextrous.
Space limitations prevent us listing the whole array of a seemingly endless number of promising future research avenues, but a final avenue for future research that would advance our understanding of knowledge in networks is differentiating knowledge into various types. Studies typically make a distinction between explicit information and tacitly-held know-how. Even tacitly-held knowledge comprises more than just know-how, and also includes know-what, know-when, know-where, know-who, and know-why components (Garud, 1997; Kogut et al., 1993). Studies of social networks have begun to make a distinction in type of knowledge, albeit coarse, by considering the role of transactive memory (cf. Soda et al., 2004), which relates to know-who, know-where, and know-when. Likewise, Tyler and Steensma (1995) found that executives with technical experience were more favorable of entering into a technology alliance than executives without that experience were. Such issues may be investigated by considering the different components of knowledge. The knowledge set of executive managers is different from that of functional managers. In that sense, differences in knowledge sets may place enormous demands on organizations, especially if they enter into alliances mostly at the business level for it likely requires more internal coordination. Firms may even choose to decentralize knowledge regarding who knows what and where knowledge resides, but may centralize know-how and know-what.
In sum, research into knowledge and networks has made substantial progress. The field of study is wide, however, and in its current state has left investigators with a variety of open terrains that deserve academic pursuit. Although first attempts at cross-fertilization have emerged, the three network types heeded in this chapter have been dealt with mostly separately. One of the main avenues for gaining further understanding of how networks facilitate learning, knowledge creation, and knowledge integration is consideration of the three networks in a complementary way. We hope the issues and questions raised in this review will set the stage for many future studies.
References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S-W. (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17–40.
Ahuja, G. (2000a) The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (Special Issue): 317–343.
Ahuja, G. (2000b) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.
Almeida, P. and Phene, A. (2004) Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 847–864.
Anand, B.N. and Khanna, T. (2000) Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (Special Issue): 295–315.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., and Holm, U. (2002) The strategic impact of external networks: subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11): 979–996.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., and Holm, U. (2007) Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5): 802–818.
Antonelli, C. 1988: The emergence of the network firm. In C. Antonelli (ed.), New information technology and industrial change: The Italian case, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 13–32.
Aoki, M. (1986) Horizontal vs. vertical information structure of the firm. American Economic Review, 76 (5): 971–983.
Argote, L., Beckman, S., and Epple, D. (1990) The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36(2): 140–154.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., and Reagans, R. (2003) Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4): 571–582.
Arikan, A.T. (2009) Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 658–676.
Baker, W.E. (1992) The network organization in theory and practice. In N. Nohria and R.G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press: 397–429.
Barringer, B.R. and Harrison, J.S. (2000) Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3): 367–403.
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing across borders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1993) Beyond the M-form: Toward a managerial theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Winter Special Issue): 23–46.
Baum, J.A.C., Calabrese, T., and Silverman, B.S. (2000) Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (Special Issue): 267–294.
Blyler, M. and Coff, R. (2003) Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7): 677–686.
Borgatti, S.P. and Cross, R. (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4): 432–445.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1989) Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15: 97–118.
Brass, D.J. and Burkhardt, M.E. (1993) Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 441–470.
Brusoni, S. (2005) The limits to specialization: Problem solving and coordination in ‘modular networks’. Organization Studies, 26(12): 1885–1907.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961) The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R.S. (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 339–365.
Burt, R.S. (2000) The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior: 345–422.
Burt, R.S. (2007) Brokerage and Closure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cangelosi, V.E. and Dill, W.R. (1965) Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10 (2): 175–203.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128–152.
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement): S95–S120.
Cross, R. and Cummings, J.N. (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 928–937.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5): 554–571.
Darr, E.D., Argote, L., and Epple, D. (1995) The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41(11): 1750–1762.
Das, T.K. and Teng, B-S. (2000) A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26 (1) : 31–61.
Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M.A., Steensma, H.K., and Tihanyi, L. (2004) Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 428–442.
Dhanaraj, C. and Parkhe, A. (2006) Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 659–668.
Doz, Y.L. and Hamel, G. (1998) Alliance advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Doz, Y.L., Santos, J., and Williamson, P.J. (2001) From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dyer, J.H. (1996) Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (4): 271–292.
Dyer, J.H. (1997) Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage. Organization Science, 7(6): 649–666.
Dyer, J.H., Kale, P., and Singh, H. (2001) How to make strategic alliances work. Sloan Management Review, 42(4): 37–43.
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345–367.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.
Evan, W.M. (1965) Toward a theory of inter-organizational relations. Management Science, 11(10): B217-B230.
Frost, T.S., Birkinshaw, J.M., and Ensign, P.C. (2002) Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11): 997–1018.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1979) Exchange networks. London: Sage.
Galunic, D.C. and Rodan, S. (1998) Resource recombination in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12): 1193–1201.
Gargiulo, M. and Benassi, M. (2000) Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2): 183–196.
Garud, R. (1997) On the distinction between know-how, know-why and know-what in technological systems. Advances in Strategic Management, 14: 81–101.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1997) The individualized corporation. San Francisco, CA: Harper Business.
Gnyawali, D.R. and Madhavan R. (2001) Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 431–445.
Goerzen, A. (2005) Managing alliance networks: Emerging practices of multinational corporations. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2): 94–107.
Goerzen, A. (2007) Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5): 487–509.
Grabher, G. (1993). The weakness of strong ties: the lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr Area. In G. Grabher (ed.), The Embedded Firm: On the socio-economics of industrial networks. London: Routledge: 255–277.
Granovetter, M.S. (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.
Grant, R.M. (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability and knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4): 375–387.
Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2004) A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1): 61–84.
Gulati, R. (1995) Social structure and alliance formation pattern: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): 610–652.
Gulati, R. (1998) Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 293–318.
Gulati, R. (1999) Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5): 397–420.
Gulati, R. and Gargiulo, M. (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1439–1493.
Gulati, R. and Singh, H. (1998) The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4): 781–814.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 768–792.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4): 473–496.
Hamel, G. (1991) Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(Summer Special Issue): 83–103.
Hansen, M.T. (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 82–111.
Hansen, M.T. (2002) Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3): 232–248.
Hansen, M.T. and Løvas, B. (2004) How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 801–822.
Hansen, M.T. and Nohria, N. (2004) How to build collaborative advantage. Sloan Management Review, 46(1): 22–30.
Hansen, M.T., Podolny, J.M., and Pfeffer, J. (2001) So many ties, so little time: A task contingency perspective on the value of social capital in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18: 21–57.
Hedberg, B.L.T., Nystrom, P.C., and Starbuck, W.H. (1976) Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1): 41–65.
Hedlund, G. (1994) A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Summer Special Issue): 73–90.
Hite, J.M. and Hesterly, W.S. (2001) The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 275–286.
Hoffmann, W.H. (2005) How to manage a portfolio of alliances. Long Range Planning, 38(1): 123–143.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004) Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(2): 68–78.
Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998) Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 9(4): 454–468.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005) Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 146–165.
Jansen, J.J.P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5): 982–1007.
Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 797– 811.
Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11): 1661–1674.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1992) Specific and general knowledge and organizational structure. In L. Werin and H. Wikander (eds.), Contract economics. Oxford: Blackwell: 251–274.
Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S., and Borgatti, S.P. (1997) A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 911–945.
Kale, P., Dyer, J.H., and Singh, H. (2002) Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 747–767.
Kale, P. and Singh, H. (2007) Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10): 981–1000.
Kale, P., Singh, H., and Perlmutter, H. (2000) Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 217–237.
Khanna, T. (1998) The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9(3): 340–355.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., and Nohria, N. (1998) The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3): 193–210.
Kogut, B. (1988) Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4): 319–332.
Kogut, B., Shan, W., and Walker, G. (1993) Knowledge in the network and the network as knowledge: The structuring of new industries. In G. Grabher (ed.), The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks. London: Routledge: 67–94.
Koka, B.R. and Prescott, J.E. (2002) Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9): 795–816.
Kraatz, M.S. (1998) Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6): 621–643.
Kumar, R. and Nti, K.O. (1998) Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics: A process and outcome discrepancy model. Organization Science, 9(3): 356–367.
Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 461–477.
Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E., and Lyles, M.A. (2001) Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12): 1139–1161.
Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., and Sparks, J. (1998) The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9 (3): 285–305.
Lavie, D. (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 638–658.
Lavie, D. and Rosenkopf, L. (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797–818.
Levin, D.S. and Cross, R. (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11): 1477–1490.
Lincoln, J.R. (1982) Intra- (and inter) organizational networks. In S.B. Bacharach (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 1–38.
Lorenzoni, G. and Lipparini, A. (1999) The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4): 317–338.
Lyles, M.A. (1988) Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms. In F.J. Contractor and P. Lorange (eds.), Cooperative Strategies in International Business. Lexington: Lexington Books: 301–316.
Lyles, M.A. and Schwenk, C.R. (1992) Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2): 155–174.
Majumdar, S.K. and Venkataraman, S. (1998) Network effects and the adoption of new technology: Evidence from the US telecommunications industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19(11): 1045–1062.
McEvily, B. and Marcus, A. (2005) Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11): 1033–1055.
McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A. (1999) Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12): 1133–1156.
Mesquita, L.F., Anand, J., and Brush, T.H. (2008) Comparing the resource-based and relational views: Knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(9): 913–941.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Mathews, J.A., Miles, G., and Coleman, H.J. Jr. (1997) Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4): 7–20.
Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C.F., and Park, H.J. (2003) MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 586–599.
Mitchell, W. and Singh, K. (1996) Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 169–195.
Mom, T.J.M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2007) Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6): 910–931.
Mom, T.J.M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 812–828.
Monteiro, L.F., Arvidsson, N., and Birkinshaw, J. (2008) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations: Explaining subsidiary isolation and its performance implications. Organization Science, 19(1): 90–107.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., and Silverman, B.S. (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 77–91.
Mudambi, R. and Navarra, P. (2004) Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking in MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 385–406.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.
Nohria, N. (1992) Is a network perspective a useful way of studying organizations? In N. Nohria and R.G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press: 1–22.
Nohria, N. and Eccles, R.G. (1992) Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In N. Nohria and R.G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press: 288–308.
Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. (1997) The differentiated network. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Obstfeld, D. (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 100–130.
Ostroff, F. (1999) The horizontal organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, E.T. (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pettigrew, A.M., Massini, S., and Numagami, T. (2000) Innovative forms of organizing in Europe and Japan. European Management Journal, 18(3): 259–273.
Pettigrew, A.M., Whittington, R., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Ruigrok, W., and Numagami, T. (2003) Innovative forms of organizing: International perspectives. London: Sage.
Phene, A. and Almeida, P. (2008). Innovation in multinational subsidiaries : The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 901–919.
Powell, W.W. (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295–336.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K., and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 116–145.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375–409.
Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 240–267.
Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2008) Contradictory or compatible? Reconsidering the ‘trade-off’ between brokerage and closure on knowledge sharing. Advances in Strategic Management, 25: 275–313.
Reagans, R. and Zuckerman, E.W. (2008) Why knowledge does not equal power: the network redundancy trade-off. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5): 903–944.
Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1994) Developmental processes of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1): 90–118.
Rowley, T.J. and Baum, J.A.C. (2008) The dynamics of network strategies and positions. Advances in Strategic Management, 25: 641–671.
Rowley, T.J., Behrens, D., and Krackhardt, D. (2000) Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (Special Issue): 369–386.
Sarkar, M., Aulakh, P.S., and Madhok, A. (2009) Process capabilities and value creation in alliance portfolios. Organization Science, 20(3): 583–600.
Schulz, M. (2001) The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 661–681.
Schulz, M. (2003) Pathways of relevance: Exploring inflows of knowledge into subunits of multinational corporations. Organization Science, 14(4): 440–459.
Siggelkow, N. and Rivkin, J. (2005) Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2): 101–122.
Simonin, B.L. (1997) The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1150–1174.
Simonin, B.L. (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7): 595–623.
Singh, K. and Mitchell, W. (1996) Precarious collaboration: Business survival after partners shut down or form new partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Summer Special Issue): 99–115.
Soda, G., Usai, A., and Zaheer, A. (2004) Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 893–906.
Stuart, T.E. (1998) Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3): 668–698.
Stuart, T.E. (2003) Governing strategic alliances. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 20: 189–208.
Szulanski, G. (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 27–43.
Szulanski, G. (2000) The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 9–27.
Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., and Jensen, R.J. (2004) When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 15(5): 600–613.
Tiwana, A. (2008) Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3): 251–272.
Tsai, W. (2000) Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 925–939.
Tsai, W. (2001) Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 996–1004.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 464–476.
Tyler, B.B. and Steensma, H.K. (1995) Evaluating technological collaborative opportunities: A cognitive modeling perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (Summer Special Issue): 43–70.
Uzzi, B. (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4): 674–698.
Uzzi, B. (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35–67.
Uzzi, B. and Lancaster, R. (2003) Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49(4): 383–399.
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J.P., and Lyles, M.A. (2008) Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4): 830–853.
Vlaar, P.W.L., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (2007) Towards a dialectic perspective on formalization in interorganizational relationships: How alliance managers capitalize on the duality inherent in rules and procedures. Organization Studies, 28(4): 437–466.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., and Shan, W. (1997) Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(1): 109–125.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O.E. (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Wong, S-S., Ho, V.T., and Lee, C.H. (2008) A power perspective to interunit knowledge transfer: Linking knowledge attributes to unit power and the transfer of knowledge. Journal of Management, 34(1): 127–150.
Zaheer, A. and Bell, G.G. (2005) Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9): 809–825.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 5(1): 76–92.
Zenger, T.R. and Hesterly, W.S. (1997) The disaggregation of corporations: Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organization Science, 8(3): 209–222.
1Two alternative uses of the term ‘network’ exist that confound its meaning, but are beyond the scope of this chapter. First, by mentioning ‘networks’ in economics, scholars often refer to ‘network economies’ or ‘network externalities,’ which are present when goods interface with other goods, entailing conversion, consumption, and imitation effects. Especially imitation effects are impacted by knowledge-related considerations, since they occur when mimetic behavior brought about by interfirm information flows drives firms to imitation (Majumdar and Venkataraman, 1998). Second, when considering the implementation of networks, often reference is made to information technology networks that link computers throughout an organization. While these networks certainly contribute to the sharing of knowledge within and across firms, and even contribute to the development of a ‘network firm’ (Antonelli, 1988), they do not typically emphasize and rely on richer face-to-face communications (Nohria and Eccles, 1992).
2This distinction is in line with other typologies commonly used in network studies such as intracorporate, strategic alliances and industrial districts (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005).