Regional small businesses’ personal and inter-firm networks

Sharafizad, Jalleh; Brown, Kerry

doi:10.1108/jbim-09-2019-0432

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 85 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the extent of the network grows to include more units with geographic spread and autonomy, representing a global context, it becomes more difficult to activate an interface without history. Previous studies point to the preference of regional interactions to collaborate with local actors (Sharafizad and Brown, 2020). Consequently, it is not surprising that the location of actors also influences the level of interactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilizing resources in product development by organizational interfaces across firms, units and functions

Sundquist

Melander

2020

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how various organizational interfaces between firms, units and functions, and the interplay between them, are developed and mobilized in product development processes. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical framework is based on the industrial network approach, including interactive resource development and the concept of organizational interfaces. A single case study is conducted at a world-leading industrial tool manufacturer, illustrating how resources are combined over time, crossing boundaries of firms, units and functions in the development of a hand-held digitalized tool for quality assurance in the production of cars. Data have been collected through semi-structured interviews, with additional data in the form of project reports, internal documents and practices for external collaboration. Findings In addition to inter-organizational interfaces, the study identifies a typology of scouting, embarking and integration interfaces at unit level (geographically spread units of one multinational corporation) and interpretation and reciprocal interfaces at function level. The conclusions show that these interfaces affect the outcome of three aspects of the product development process: product characteristics and functionality features, system integration and organizational network extent. Existing interfaces serve as a platform for developing interaction further and provide the interfaces with new content, thus moving between different types of interfaces. Product development processes also involve new interfaces where there was no previous interaction between the parties. Research limitations/implications This research has implications for the interplay between interfaces in cases involving multiple external and internal actors in resource combining efforts. Practical implications External interactions between firms influence and impact internal activities and resources. Managers need to be aware of the complex interdependencies between external and internal interfaces and resources. Managing organizational interfaces is about both exploiting established interfaces and developing new ones. Consequently, existing interfaces may be activated differently to align with new interaction purposes, which, in turn, requires efforts to combine resources according to the new conditions. Originality/value Previous research contains a typology of organizational interfaces between customers and suppliers. The study expands on this research by identifying internal interfaces between units and functions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilizing resources in product development by organizational interfaces across firms, units and functions

Sundquist

Melander

2020

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such networks are also typically the determining factors for the location of the new venture, where entrepreneur's previous place attachment, either through education, growing up, or industrial experience influences location decision -one based on proximity to established connections (Sorenson, 2018). Moreover, there is a tendency among the small business owners towards local network embeddedness at the cost of building nonproximate relations (Sharafizad & Brown, 2020), suggesting a tendency for network lock-in effect, where new opportunities have no route to enter the network. This is especially evident in Batjargal's (2003) study which finds that having more close friends in a network limits company's development (i.e.…”

Section: Network Properties and Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining networks in entrepreneurial ecosystems: the openness of ecosystems

Prokop

Thompson

2022

Small Bus Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper draws on network theory to employ concepts of homophily and heterophily to investigate whether the presence of familiar, unfamiliar or a mix of actors in an entrepreneurial ecosystem is related to start-up rates. The empirical focus of this study is on 81 UK university entrepreneurial ecosystems and their outputs in terms of academic spinoff companies. The paper finds that university entrepreneurial ecosystems with access to actors of predominantly heterophilious character are associated with higher spinoff start-up rates. It is concluded that in stimulating the development of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems there is a clear need to focus on their openness to heterophilious actors, inclusive of other ecosystems. This is especially important in the context of network lock-in that may arise from dependence on homophilious ties. Plain English Summary Entrepreneurial ecosystems characterised by openness to diverse actors generate more firms, as shown in a study focusing on 81 UK university entrepreneurial ecosystems. The paper studies network character of actors in entrepreneurial ecosystems and whether this character is associated with start-up rates. Specifically, it focuses on the familiarity of actors, inspecting whether it is related to greater venture formations. In so doing, the study examines 81 UK university entrepreneurial ecosystems. It finds that university entrepreneurial ecosystems that generate more ventures are associated with having a presence of actors of unfamiliar character, drawing attention to the openness of ecosystems’ networks. The key implication of the study is in recognising the link between the ecosystem’s openness to diverse actors and its entrepreneurial performance.

show abstract

“…The development of innovation as the main goal Autio and Thomas (2014), Granstrand and Holgersson (2020), Ritala and Almpanopoulou (2017), important role in business relationships, since its presence can effectively and efficiently allow knowledge transfer among different parties (Massaro et al, 2019) and even enhance the network performance (Klijn et al, 2015). Thus, environments where organizations collaborate with each other and establish interdependent networks, require interorganizational trust (Donati et al, 2019;Sharafizad and Brown, 2020), which can be considered the driver of exchange relations, negotiation and conflict (Donati et al, 2019;Zaheer et al, 1998).…”

Section: Innovation Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of trust in innovation ecosystems

Steinbruch

Nascimento

Menezes

2021

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There are indications that trust is essential in innovation ecosystems relations. However, studies have not yet focused on deeply exploring such connection. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the influence of trust among actors in the context of innovation ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach This study developed a conceptual framework and a set of propositions. We raised a discussion based on the intertwining of three widely known dimensions of trust (ability, benevolence and integrity) and four dimensions of innovation ecosystems (network collaboration, interdependency, value co-creation and innovation objectives). Findings This paper suggests that trust contributes to the development of innovation ecosystems’ dimensions. In addition, it sheds light on the need to consider all three dimensions of trust together and simultaneously, because, by itself, none of them is sufficient to build trust in innovation ecosystems. Also, we argue that the different connections between the dimensions of trust and those of innovation ecosystems lead to the development of such ecosystems. Originality/value Through the approach of an underexplored area of research, this paper contributes to a broad understanding of the role of trust in innovation ecosystems toward the pursuit of creating innovation. It also proposes a novelty to the field, by suggesting four dimensions of innovation ecosystems to help managers analyze ecosystems through a more practical perspective.

show abstract

Regional small businesses’ personal and inter-firm networks

Cited by 16 publications

References 85 publications

Mobilizing resources in product development by organizational interfaces across firms, units and functions

Mobilizing resources in product development by organizational interfaces across firms, units and functions

Defining networks in entrepreneurial ecosystems: the openness of ecosystems

The role of trust in innovation ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About