Logika strategii sieciowych

• Authors: Czakon Wojciech

Title variants

EN

Network Strategies Logic

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Artykuł przyjmuje perspektywę logiki dominującej, tj. konceptualizacji biznesu oraz krytycznych decyzji alokacyjnych, by zaproponować typologię strategii sieciowych. Pierwszy typ opiera się na logice strukturalnej i zmierza do uzyskania renty pozycyjnej, konfiguracyjnej lub relacyjnej. Drugi typ to zasobowa logika sieciowa, w której sieć staje się sposobem dostępu do zasobów, kluczowym zasobem oraz wyzwaniem kompetencyjnym dla organizacji. Trzecia logika postrzega sieć jako układ tworzenia i zawłaszczania wartości przez koopetycję oraz ekosystemy.

EN

This paper adopts a dominant logic perspective, i.e. conceptualization of business and critical resource allocation, in order to provide a network strategies typology. The first type is based on structural logic and seeks positional, configuration and relational rents. The second logic is resource-based and views networks as a resource access structure, a critical resource per se and a competence development challenge. Third, the value-creation and value-appropriation logic opens ways to exploit coopetition or ecosystems in firms’ strategies.

Keywords

PL

logika dominująca; sieć; strategia; strukturalne; zasoby; tworzenie wartości

EN

dominant logic; network; strategy; structural; resource; value creation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Problemy Zarządzania
• Year: 2016
• Issue: 4/2016 (64), t.2
• Pages: 17 - 30

Dates

published

2016-12-18

Contributors

author

Czakon Wojciech

• University of Economics in Katowice, Department of Management Theory

References

• Blomqvist, K. and Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(1), 31–48.
• Bogner, W.C. and Barr, P.S. (2000). Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science, 11(2), 212–226.
• Bonner, J.M., Kim, D., and Cavusgil, S.T. (2005). Self-perceived strategic network identity and its effects on market performance in alliance relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1371–1380.
• Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B.J. (1995). The right game: Use game theory to shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 57–71.
• Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes. The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Capaldo, A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 585–608.
• Czakon, W. (2011). Paradygmat sieciowy w naukach o zarządzaniu. Przegląd Organizacji, 11(5).
• Czakon, W. (2012). Sieci w zarządzaniu strategicznym. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
• Czakon, W. (2013). Splątanie gospodarki. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej w Poznaniu, 49, 17–25.
• Dhanaraj, C. and Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.
• Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
• Dyer, J.H. and Hatch, N.W. (2004). Using supplier networks to learn faster. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(3), 57–63.
• Fernandez, A.S., Le Roy, F., and Gnyawali, D.R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.
• Fombrun, C.J. (1982). Strategies for network research in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 280–291.
• Gadde, L.E., Håkansson, H., and Persson, G. (2010). Supply Network Strategies. John Wiley & Sons.
• Garcia-Pont, C. and Nohria, N. (2002). Local versus global mimetism: The dynamics of alliance formation in the automobile industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 307–321.
• Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (1993). Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems’ open systems strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 351–369.
• Gimeno, J. (2004). Competition within and between networks: The contingent effect of competitive embeddedness on alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 820–842.
• Glinka, B. and Gudkova, S. (2011). Przedsiębiorczość. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
• Grant, R.M. (1988). On ‘dominant logic’, relatedness and the link between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 639–642.
• Hagiu, A. and Yoffie, D.B. (2009). What’s your Google strategy?. Harvard Business Review, 87(4), 74–81.
• Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1989). No business is an island: the network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 187-200.
• Håkansson, H. and Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133–139.
• Håkanson, L. (2010). The firm as an epistemic community: The knowledge-based view revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), 1801–1828.
• Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 83–103.
• Harland, C.M. and Knight, L.A. (2001). Supply network strategy: Role and competence requirements. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(4), 476–489.
• Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. and Puumalainen, K. (2007). Nature and dynamics of appropriability: Strategies for appropriating returns on innovation. R&D Management, 37(2), 95–112.
• Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.
• Johnson, J.L. (1999). Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: Managing the interfirm relationship as a strategic asset. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 4–18.
• Kawa, A. and Pierański, B. (2015). Świadomość sieciowa we współpracy gospodarczej przedsiębiorstw w Polsce — wyniki badań. Przegląd Organizacji, (12), 21–27.
• Klimas, P. (2011). Wymiary bliskości w sieciach innowacji. Przegląd Organizacji, (4), 16–20.
• Koka, B.R. and Prescott, J.E. (2008). Designing alliance networks: The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6), 639–661.
• Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Luo, Y. (2007). A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business, 42(2), 129–144.
• Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1986). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies and performance: An empirical examination with American data Part II: Performance implications. Organization studies, 7(3), 255–261.
• Mitrega, M., Forkmann, S., Ramos, C., and Henneberg, S.C. (2012). Networking capability in business relationships – Concept and scale development. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 739–751.
• Möller, K. and Rajala, A. (2007). Rise of strategic nets – New modes of value creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 895–908.
• Moore, J.F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–83.
• Niemczyk, J. (2013). Strategia: od planu do sieci. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego.
• Nohria, N. and Garcia-Pont, C. (1991). Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 105–124.
• Obloj, T., Obloj, K., and Pratt, M.G. (2010). Dominant logic and entrepreneurial firms’ performance in a transition economy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 151–170.
• Ozcan, P. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2009). Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 246–279.
• Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A resource dependence approach. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
• Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R.A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.
• Ritter, T. and Gemünden, H.G. (2003). Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 745–755.
• Salancik, G. (1995). Review Essay – Wanted: A Good Network Theory of Organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 345–349.
• Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2015). Strategicznie o ekosystemie biznesu. Prace Naukowe Wałbrzyskiej Wyższej Szkoły Zarządzania i Przedsiębiorczości, 32, 395–409.
• Światowiec-Szczepańska, J., Małys, Ł., and Zdziarski, M. (2015). Strukturalne powiązania sieciowe spółek giełdowych. In: W Czakon (ed.), Przedsiębiorstwo w sieci. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej w Poznaniu, 64, 35–46.
• Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
• Walsh, J.P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321.
• Zaheer, A., Gulati, R., and Nohria, N. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3).

Identifiers

ISSN

1644-9584

DOI

10.7172/1644-9584.64.1