Blind Dates and Arranged Marriages: Longitudinal Processes of Network Orchestration

Abstract

Using longitudinal qualitative and network data capturing five years of evolution of an interorganizational network, this paper explores network orchestration -the process of assembling and developing an interorganizational network. In particular, we analyze shifts in the network orchestrator's actions and the network's structure and composition. We find that an orchestrator builds the capacity to assemble a network over time through the accumulation of resources and specialized expertise. However, as the network develops, an orchestrator faces an evolving set of dilemmas arising from the need to demonstrate value for various members and audiences. To resolve these dilemmas, orchestrators may shift their actions, moving from initially encouraging serendipitous encounters between network members ("blind dates") to increasingly selecting members and more closely influencing their interactions ("arranging marriages"). We discuss implications of our findings for a processual understanding of orchestrated network assembly and growth.

Small-Firm Networks and strategies for consolidation: evidence from the Brazilian context

“…However, it also became evident that the governance mode adopted can generate tensions and negative consequences, as highlighted by Dhanaraj and Arvind (2006) and Paquin and Howard-Grenville (2013). These authors suggest that the network should be orchestrated rather than traditionally managed: neither so focused on hierarchy that hinders members' participation, nor so flexible to the point of not being able to carry out activities due to a lack of standards and guidelines.…”

Coordination of Industrial Symbiosis through Anchoring

“…Such social and institutional conditions are typically (but not exclusively) created by public organizations. Actors associated with institutional anchoring activities have also been referred to in other terms, such as 'organizing teams' [21], 'coordinating bodies' [22], 'champions' [23], and 'network orchestrators' [24,25].…”

“…Coordination of anchoring activities thus takes shape as a coherent set of very deliberate, top-down, efforts. In line with Paquin and Howard-Grenville [25], we refer to this particular type of coordination as orchestration, as to distinguish it from more serendipitous types of coordination. To bring this orchestration of the activities to the foreground, we summarized and visualized how the anchoring activities build on each other in Table 5 and Figure 3.…”

The Link Between Entrepreneurial Attributes and Ecosystem Orchestration: The Case of Q-Search

“…Hence, the entrepreneur's original vision provides the red thread guiding the ecosystem's development, whereas her choice of actions in the specific developmental phases mirrors her personal growth. In this context, Paquin and Howard-Grenville's (2013) Tables 2, 3, and 4 for a full overview). Consequently, when describing the Q-Search ecosystem's evolution from initiation throughout maturity, Paquin and HowardGrenville's (2013) framework has been adapted to incorporate entrepreneurial personal attributes.…”

“…Hence, as the diversity of partners and resources within Q-Search increases, so does the need for an infrastructure that can accommodate a broader range of knowledge integration and social coordination mechanisms. The entrepreneur's actions up to this point (contracts, IT platform, and subscription fee) aim not only to enhance socialization and increase knowledge mobility (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006), but also to solve a common dilemma in an ecosystem's growth: enabling serendipity versus directing ties (Paquin and Howard-Grenville, 2013) between partners. More precisely, the entrepreneur (as the formal orchestrator) attempts to balance effort spent towards enabling each type of value-creating activity by offering partners plenty of freedom within the boundaries of the community-e.g., partners are encouraged to meet without her.…”