Claves del derecho de redes empresariales. AAVV
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Claves del derecho de redes empresariales - AAVV страница 38
Название: Claves del derecho de redes empresariales
Автор: AAVV
Издательство: Bookwire
isbn: 9788491330684
isbn:
3.4. Summary
The three forms of network competition portrayed here, (1) competition in network formation, (2) competition in network composition, and (3) competition in network governance, focus on different, yet critical domains of competitionin network dynamics, and thereby illustrate that competitive interactionsin each of these domains need to be taken into account in network initiation and management. These can have major performance implications not only for the network but also for every network member. Competition in network formation refers to the most foundational domain of business networks, i.e. their principal purpose and thus, the reason for their existence. This type of competition especially highlights the instrumental nature of business networks for their members. Competition in network formation focuses on the essential elements of a business network: its members, and the resources that they bring into the network. Competition in network governance reiterates that it is not sufficient to be innovative, or to have an inspiring idea and a knowledgeable and competent team, but that member organization and orchestration, that is: their interplay, are non-trivial tasks that need to be performed reasonably well and in accordance with the specificities of the actual situation. Only then the potentials of the promising idea and the competence of the team members can be leveraged.
For each of these three types of competition typical concerns that decision makers on the network and member levels frequently encounter can be formulated (see table 4 for an overview). Some of them can be addressed by the management implications outlined in the respective sections of this chapter, others are only hardly subject to general and generic implications.
Additionally, it should be noted that these forms of network competition are not independent. Various relations exist, as figure 1 indicates: a relevant and convincing network purpose requires a “good” constellation of members and an effective governance system to materialize; a constellation of members that are willing to effectively combine their resources need a legitimate purpose and a fitting governance to do so; and a highly effective governance system is of little help if members lack critical resources, or diverge in their understanding and assessment of the purpose of their joint endeavor. Thus, networks and network members are subject to all three forms of network competition simultaneously — even though in varying, probably even fluctuating strength and prominence.
TABLE 4: Overview of three types of network competition, key characteristics and resulting concerns for decision makers on the network and member levels
4. CONCLUSION AND RELATIONS TO BUSINESS AND COMPETITION LAW
Business networks are highly interesting phenomena that have emerged as highly relevant arrangementsin the explanation of firm performance. The way in which networks shape competition for the single firm has two sides: It can be positive if firms realize the potential and use the opportunities provided by network formation and membership; it can also have negative repercussions if firms ignore or are unable to find adequate responses to rivals’ cooperative strategies. The above pointed out three forms of this network competition, presented one empirical study for each domain, and explicated some consequences for network and member firm management. Suggestions included differentiating (1) competition in network formation, (2) competition in network composition, and (3) competition in network governance.
Networks play an eminent role and even engage in competitive practices in many industries, and are therefore also relevant to regulators, policy makers, and competition lawyers. Also for them, interpreting networks as either one-sidedly positive (e.g. to foster innovation and to help small and medium-sized enterprises stay competitive) or negative (e.g. as a form of collusion) is too simplistic. Scholars and practitioners from all disciplines would benefit from greater awareness of each other’s results and approaches in the analysis of business networks. In strategy and organization theory, network dynamics and competition are only beginning to be understood, and results from and implications for commercial and competition law are widely neglected, even though strong interrelations exist. For example, the reduction of rivalry between multi-market competitors (firms that encounter each other on several markets)is a widely acknowledged effect among industrial economists (Edwards, 1955) and strategy researchers (Yu, Subramaniam & Cannella, 2009).However, despite its implications for the functioning of competition, this “mutual forbearance effect” seems to have found only little reception in competition law and regulatory practice. Additionally, the formation of formal cooperative ties between such multi-market competitors is frequently observable (Luo, 2007); the formation of alliances among multi-market firms implies that these firms (which already “mutually forbear”) addexplicit, formal cooperation agreements that cover some of their common markets. The effect of such agreements among multi-market competitors, or their role in business networks would be of high relevance for the rivalry between them and thus, for firm performance(Albers, 2011; Li & Netessine, 2011), but would also unfold relevant implications for competition authorities. In competition law and regulatory practice, it seems that these interdependencies that include implicit and explicit cooperative agreements across diversified firms’ markets and divisions are not yet fully acknowledged.
Thus, further research is needed in all of these fields, and dialogue between disciplines needs to be encouraged in order to allow for effective networks to emerge, and survive, but also to be terminated, in a regulatory environment that understands their inner logic to prevent misuse.
REFERENCES
ALBERS, S. 2005. The Design of Alliance Governance Systems. Cologne: Kölner Wissenschaftsverlag.
ALBERS, S. 2010. Configurations of Alliance Governance Systems. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 62(3): 204-233.
ALBERS, S. 2011. The Impact of Alliances on Mutual Forbearance among Multimarket Competitors. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Antonio, 2011.
ALBERS, S.,& HEUERMANN, C. 2013.Inter-Industry Competitive Dynamics: An Analysis of Inter-industry Competition in German Passenger Transportation. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR)), 65(3): 431-453
ALBERS, S., & KLAAS-WISSING, T. 2012.Organization of Multilateral LTL-Alliances. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 15(3): 181-198.
ALBERS, S., SCHWEIGER, B., & Gibb, J. 2013. A process model of strategic network member acquisition and retention. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (BPS Division).
ALBERS, S., WOHLGEZOGEN, F., & ZAJAC, E. J. (2013).Strategic Alliance Structures: An Organization Design Perspective. Journal of Management, published online ahead of print on May 29, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0149206313488209.
BARNEY, J. B. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
BARNEY, J. B., & ARIKAN, A. M. 2001. The Resource-based View: Origins and Implications. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman and J. S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management: 124-188. Oxford, Malden: Blackwell.
BRV. 2012. Marktstrukturanalyse. Der Reifenfachhandel im Reifenersatzgeschäft in Deutschland. Bonn: Bundesverband Reifenhandel und Vulkaniseurhandwerk e.V.
CHEN, M.-J., & MILLER, D. 2012. Competitive Dynamics: Themes, Trends, and a Prospective Research Platform. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 135-210.
CROPPER, S., EBERS, M., HUXHAM, C., & SMITH RING, P. 2008. Introducing Inter-Organizational Relations. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham and P. Smith Ring (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations: 3-21. Oxford, New York: СКАЧАТЬ