The knowledge domain of chain and network science

Abstract

This editorial paper aims to provide a framework to categorise and evaluate the domain of Chain and Network Science (CNS), and to provide an envelope for the research and management agenda. The authors strongly feel that although considerable progress has been made over the past couple of years in the development of the CNS domain, a number of important and exciting challenges are still waiting to be tackled. This paper provides a definition of the object of study of CNS, its central problem area, the organisation and governance of chain and network co-operation, and the relationships between chain organisation and technology development, market dynamics, and the economy and society at large. It indicates relevant sources of knowledge among the various academic disciplines. It touches upon CNS problem solving by identifying areas for knowledge development and CNS tool construction.

Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry

“…The various factors considered important in theoretical terms for a firm to innovate have been extensively analyzed on an empirical basis (Avermaete et al, 2004; Cohen, 1995; De Jong & Vermeulen, 2006; Earle, 1997; Ma & McSweeney, 2008; Rama & von Tunzelmann, 2008). The above studies either tested interindustry differences, seeking to rank the sector according to innovative behavior, or focused on high‐tech industries or on specific features such as the role of R&D (Bougheas, 2004), the relationship between innovation and export behaviour (Wakelin, 1998) or the effects on product and process “innovativeness” of cooperation arrangements and networks (Drivas & Giannakas, 2006; Freel, 2003; Freel & Harrison, 2006; Fritsch & Lukas, 2001; Love & Roper, 1999; Omta et al, 2001; Tether, 2002). Some studies have specifically looked at innovative behavior within the food industry whose level of innovativeness, when assessed by the R&D effort or patenting, is usually rather low compared to that in other sectors (Rama, 1996, 2008).…”

“…In this model innovativeness is deeply influenced by the social embeddedness and by the institutional environment in which the firm operates. In other words, the geographical location and local networking of food firms are key factors behind different attitudes to innovativeness (Nielsen, 2008; Omta, Trienekens, & Beers, 2001). The specific location of a firm (i.e., within a food district) is relatively important to understand the opportunities to use local social capital and the institutional environment as a source of knowledge and innovativeness (Brasili & Fanfani, 2007; Sodano, 2004).…”

Networking and developing collaborative relationships: evidence of the auto‐part industry of Brazil

“…Previous studies have emphasized the importance of relational behavior in fostering collaboration in relationships (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Dyer, 1996;Kim, 1999;Kotabe et al, 2003) and the joint effort response to safeguard and better integrate transactionspecific investments (Heide and John, 1990). In addition, more and more firms are called to use their network consciously to support the business done in specific relationships (Heide and Wathne, 2006;Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000;Omta et al, 2001).…”

Coordinating collaborative joint efforts with suppliers: the effects of trust, transaction specific investment and information network in the Dutch flower industry

“…In addition, more and more firms are called to consciously use their network to support the business done in a relationship (Gulati et al, 2000;Omta et al, 2001). Departing from these elements, we…”