Elsevier

Journal of Business Research

Volume 56, Issue 9, September 2003, Pages 691-697
Journal of Business Research

Interorganizational relationships and networks: An overview

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00254-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Relationships and networks have been analyzed with different theoretical backgrounds and methods, at different levels, and with different results and conclusions. This diversity promotes a better understanding of the antecedents, dynamics, and effects of relationships and networks. However, this diversity also creates problems to compare and integrate results and to develop a general theory based on cumulative evidence. Therefore, we want to offer a framework, which gives some overview and orientation by classifying and describing the different levels of analysis, the different theoretical and managerial perspectives, and the different objects of analysis, which have been used. This could guide the process of bringing together the different pieces of the research jigsaw called research in business-to-business markets.

Introduction

The roots of network thinking can be traced back to the early 20th century and even further (Wilkinson, in preparation). In the early days, however, interorganizational relationships have been treated as exemptions from the “ideals” of hierarchies and markets. Later, in the 1980s, a long discussion had been under way detailing the properties of relationships and trying to place them either between or besides hierarchies and markets Hagg et al., 1984, Ouchi, 1980, Powell, 1990, Thorelli, 1986. Besides the discussion of where relationships should be placed conceptually, a growing body of literature started to analyze the nature and functions of relationships. This modern understanding of marketing, purchasing, and innovation management (to name the most prominent areas) as interorganizational interaction processes had been pioneered by the work of the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) group (see, for example, Håkansson, 1982). The academic discussion as well as a growing importance and acceptance in practice have fueled the number of studies in the area of interactions, relationships, and networks seen in growing numbers of both authors and papers at the annual IMP conference (Gemünden, 1997).

Actually, the move from an analysis of individual firms towards the interactions between firms is the basis of much academic and managerial thinking in the 1990s. Since IMP research started, the world has changed in many ways.

⋅ Outsourcing became a prominent option in many industries, e.g. for automotive and computer services. There is a constant move to decrease value creation inside the firm and, as a consequence, increase the value bought into the firm from suppliers. This has created new relationships not only in numbers but also in content because responsibilities are differently allocated along the value chain.

⋅ In addition to supply, market entry and research and development (R&D) were increasingly organized as Joint Ventures. As a specific organizational form of “strategic alliances” or in general collaboration, this become popular and again increased the interest in interorganizational research.

⋅ The term “virtual organization” indicated a tendency towards flexible project-oriented cooperations between firms, enabled by progress in electronic business tools. The virtual organization can be interpreted as a network of relationship between firms, which pool together their resources to achieve “size effects”. Smaller firms appear big.

⋅ On the other side, large multinational firms have been perceived if they were networks of quite independent players, i.e. power structures in polycentric multinationals were more similar to hierarchical networks than to hierarchical organizations. This development was triggered by the idea that too big is inflexible and inefficient.

The interest in interactions, relationships, and networks developed further when the term “relationship marketing” (Grönross, 1994) was invented. The relationship marketing literature has two main origins, consumer marketing and direct marketing (Ford, 1997). This blurred the meaning of the terms slightly because the concepts and terms now also were used in consumer settings (for a comparison between the network approach and relationships marketing, see Mattsson, 1997). However, the advantage of this development was that even more insights were achieved. a large body of knowledge about interactions, relationships, and networks was developed.

The problem with today's body of relationship and network literature is that it is fragmented and — at least sometimes — different pieces does not seem to fit together. This fragmentation has several reasons: Firstly, research from very different backgrounds addresses the issue of interorganizational relationships. By structuring the different contributions, Araaujo and Easton (1996) found 10 different “network schools”. Backgrounds range from social science, organization studies, technology, and innovation management, purchasing, and marketing. Secondly, research in different parts of the world followed different trends using different methods, e.g. where the European community largely looked into understanding interactions in business markets by means of qualitative studies, US researchers focused on relationship management issues using quantitative studies. Comparisons became even harder because the different streams do not always acknowledge each others' work. As such, some work is, at least partly, overlooked in other parts of the world. Fourthly and related to the foregoing point, there are many different aims and objectives that are addressed in the different studies. Some tried to describe and understand business realities, others tried to prescribe and manage relationships. All these issues add up to a situation in which it is hard to summarize research results or even generalize.

Therefore, the objective of this introduction is to develop a framework that enables us to put the different pieces of research into perspective. As such, we will not offer a meta-analysis of research in interorganizational relationships and networks or a review of such research. However, we want to point out in which dimensions research differs and, as such, we offer a platform of understanding different research streams. Such a platform would allow to compare and to contrast research results and, as such, would be of help in developing a general theory about business networks. The paper concludes with an introduction of the contributions in this issue and by pointing out further research questions.

Section snippets

Interactions, relationships, and networks

Whilst research started by looking at interactions between organizations, it was soon realized that these interactions build up an interorganizational relationship over time. These relationships have also been called interfirm relations and alliances (especially in the US literature) and have further been building blocks in writings on virtual organizations and outsourcing. Over the years, the following characteristics of an interorganizational relationship have been discovered leading our way

Interorganizational levels of analysis

In terms of analyzing relationships and networks, we have to distinguish between four levels Ford and McDowell, 1999, Moller and Halinen, 1999.

⋅ The interaction/the episode: The basis of analysis is a single exchange, an incident, an individual interaction or an episode. Regardless of the label, it is seen and treated as one event in time. Nevertheless, it might be influence by the past and the expected future and, as such, is not necessarily isolated.

⋅ The dyad/the individual relationship:

Management levels of analysis

First, we need to make a clear point about the likelihood that one firm can manage, design, or run networks. It is zero because all activities in the networks are dependent on what the other actors do Ford and Saren, 1996, Ford, 1997. However, firms cope with relationships by not only observing them and reacting to the inevitable evolution but also by proactively anticipating change. At least, actors try to realize their own aims by influencing relationships.

However, relationships and networks

Value created by interactions, relationships, and networks

Apart from management and network analysis level, we also need to look at the output of all these management activities on the different levels. Value can be created or destroyed in interactions, relationships, and networks. Again, we can use the dimensions developed above.

A conceptual framework

Putting the elements described above together, we can build up the following framework (see Fig. 1): The output is influenced by both the interorganizational and the management level of analysis. This influence is manifold: Firstly, the output measure is influenced by the level of analysis. One would expect that, e.g. at relationship level, relationship output is looked at, whereas on network level, the output of a whole network is considered. In addition, given that different levels of

Contributions in this special issue

First, we wish to thank all authors who considered this special issue as an outlet for their work. We were overwhelmed by the number of papers that we received in response to our call for contributions. Sadly, we had to reject quite a number of papers in the review process. However, we are grateful to all the authors for their contributions.

Our special thanks go to all those who reviewed the papers for us (see Appendix A). We know only too well how hard it is to find time for these kinds of

Further research questions

Even with the contributions in this special issue, we are far away from a general theory in the field of relationships and networks. The following issues await conceptual development and empirical investigation.

⋅ There are many arguments for the impossibility of managing a network. However, managers do it on a day-to-day basis. The truth will somehow lay in the middle (as argued above), i.e. firms are only, to a certain extent, able to manage their relationships and network. The remainder is

References (57)

  • JC Anderson et al.

    Dyadic business relationships within a business network context

    J Mark

    (1994)
  • L Araujo et al.

    Networks in socio-economic systems: a critical review

  • L Araujo et al.

    Agency and constitutional ordering in networks

    Int Stud Manage Organ

    (1998)
  • R Brennan et al.

    The process of adaption in inter-firm relationships

  • RS Burt

    Models of network structure

    Annu Rev Sociol

    (1980)
  • J Callahan et al.

    Metrics for strategic alliance control

    R&D Manage

    (1999)
  • CS Cook et al.

    Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks

    Am Sociol Rev

    (1978)
  • LA Crosby et al.

    Relationship quality in service selling: an interpersonal influence perspective

    J Mark

    (1990)
  • PM Donney et al.

    An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships

    J Mark

    (1997)
  • FR Dwyer et al.

    Developing buyer–seller relationships

    J Mark

    (1987)
  • D Ford

    The development of buyer–seller relationships in industrial markets

    Eur J Mark

    (1980)
  • D Ford et al.

    The relationship between export manufacturers and their overseas distributors

  • D Ford et al.

    Technology strategy for business

    (1996)
  • HG Gemünden

    The development of IMP — an analysis of the conference proceeding 1984–96

  • C Grönross

    From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing

    Manage Decis

    (1994)
  • GT Grundlach et al.

    The structure of commitment in exchange

    J Mark

    (1995)
  • L Hallén et al.

    Interfirm adaption in business relationships

    J Mark

    (1991)
  • Cited by (182)

    • The social impact of the Nokia-Elcoteq business relationship: Examining the consequences of legitimating relationship norms

      2022, Journal of Business Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      We argue that understanding how certain relationship norms become legitimated or delegitimated (Berger, Hamit Fisek, Ridgeway, & Norman, 1998) in business relationships can help to elucidate their social impact. Legitimation of a certain relationship norm, such as reciprocity, can affect business relationships’ social impact, for example, by enabling managers to prioritize collective social matters over the deeply ingrained profit imperative (Corsaro & Snehota, 2010; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003). In contrast, delegitimating reciprocity can lead to self-interest and opportunistic behavior (Gouldner, 1960; Kaufmann, 1987).

    • Managing brand preferences of resellers

      2022, Industrial Marketing Management
    • The cooperative approach to corporate tax compliance: An empirical assessment

      2022, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation
    • Environments for Joint University-Industry Laboratories (JUIL): Micro-level dimensions and research implications

      2021, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Through the lens of this theoretical perspective, universities and industry are perceived as independent entities where university-industry collaborations can be initiated by any of these entities and this could be influenced by pre-existing relationships (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa, 2015; Barnes, Pashby and Gibbons, 2002). Thus, the social network approach has become a useful lens in explaining the dynamics of university-industry collaborations, and how the relationships evolve through the growth in influence of commitment, trust, and communication (Al-Tabbaa and Ankrah, 2019; Guan and Zhao, 2013; Ritter and Gemünden, 2003; Thune, 2007). Together, the use of different theoretical perspectives at the macro and micro levels have helped to explain different aspects of the university-industry collaborations.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text