- Author
- Osman Lokhman Hakim Bin (School of Management, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia)
- Title
- A Social Network Model of Supply Chain Management in Formal and Informal Inter-Firm Engagement
Model powiązań socjalnych w obrębie łańcucha dostaw w przypadku formalnej i nieformalnej współpracy biznesowej
Ein Modell für Soziale Verbindungen Innerhalb der Lieferkette im Falle Einer Formellen und Informellen Business-Kooperation - Source
- LogForum, 2015, vol. 11, nr 4, s. 359-373, rys., bibliogr. 57 poz.
- Keyword
- Zarządzanie łańcuchem dostaw, Struktury sieciowe, Współpraca
Supply Chain Management (SCM), Network structure, Cooperation - Note
- summ., streszcz., zfsg.
- Abstract
- Wstęp: Różne efekty wpływu pozycji firm w strukturze powiązań łańcucha dostaw typu upstream na poziom oferowanych przez te firmy jakości obsługi był przedmiotem przeprowadzonych badań. Wcześniejsze badania koncentrowały się głównie na zawartości zdecentralizowanej struktury sieciowej. Jednak łańcuch dostaw jest siecią scentralizowaną z powodu istnienia firmy o największym znaczeniu w obrębie tego łańcucha. Istnienie takiej firmy wpływa na relacje i sposób działania pozostałych firm w łańcuchu.
- Metody: Celem pracy było określenie typu pozycji w strukturze sieciowej wymaganej w celu uzyskania zadowalających relacji w obrębie łańcucha dostaw typu upstream.
- Wyniki i wnioski: Pozycja w strukturze sieciowej, tj. wartość wskaźnika centralizacji gniazda sieci (betweeness centrality) wpływa na poziom oddziaływania na innych, możliwy do realizacji przez daną firmę. Firmy znajdujące się w strukturze łańcucha dostaw w różny sposób korzystają z możliwości oddziaływań na innych w zależności od ich pozycji w tym łańcuchu. Zasoby firmy powinny być tak dobrane, aby mogła ona czerpać korzyści, znajdując się w różnych pozycjach w obrębie danej struktury sieciowej. (abstrakt oryginalny)
- Background: This research looks into the different effects of firms' network structural positions in an upstream supply network upon the firms' level of relational capital outcomes. Previous research has largely focus on the context of decentralized network structure. However, the supply network is a centralized network because of the existence of the focal firm. The existence of the focal firm may influence the impact of relational capital outcomes.
- Methods: The objective of this research is to determine the type of network structural positions required to obtain reasonable relational capital outcome in upstream supply network.
- Results and conclusions: This study found that, network structural positions i.e. betweeness centrality contributed to firms' level of relational capital influence. In conclusion, firms, embedded in upstream supply network benefits differently in terms of relational capital through different degree of embeddedness. Firms' resources should be re-aligned to match the benefits with the different network structural positions. (original abstract)
- Full text
- Show
- Bibliography
- Beamon B., 1999b. Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(3), 275-292.
- Benjamin B.A., Podolny J.M., 1999. Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative science quarterly, 44(3), 563-589.
- Borgatti S., Li X., 2009. On Social Network Analysis In a Supply Chain Context. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5-22.
- Borgatti S.P., Jones C., Everett, M.G., 1998. Network measures of social capital'. Semantic Pajek Networks Software, 21(2), 27-36.
- Bozarth C.C., Warsing D.P., Flynn B.B., Flynn E.J., 2009. The impact of supply chain complexity on manufacturing plant performance. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2008.07.003]. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 78-93.
- Brookes N., Singh A., 2008. Social Networks and Supply Chains.
- Burt R.S., 1995. Structural holes: The social structure of competition: Harvard Univ Pr.
- Burt R.S., 2001. Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. Social capital: Theory and research, 31-56.
- Carmeli A., Tishler A., 2004. The relationships between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1257-1278.
- Carmeli A., Tishler A., 2005. Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 13-30.
- Carrington P.J., Scott J., Wasserman S., 2005. Models and methods in social network analysis: Cambridge Univ Pr.
- Ebbers J.J., Wijnberg N.M., 2010. Disentangling the effects of reputation and network position on the evolution of alliance networks. Strategic Organization, 8(3), 255.
- Fombrun C.J., 1996. Reputation: Harvard Business School Press.
- Fombrun C.J., 2008. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image: Harvard Business School Press.
- Freel 2003. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00084-7]. Research policy, 32(5), 751-770.
- Freeman L.C., 1979. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239.
- Fritsch M., Kauffeld-Monz M., 2010. The impact of network structure on knowledge transfer: an application of social network analysis in the context of regional innovation networks. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(1), 21-38.
- Galaskiewicz J., Marsden P.V., 1978. Interorganizational resource networks: Formal patterns of overlap. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/0049-089X(78)90006-6]. Social Science Research, 7(2), 89-107.
- Gnyawali D.R., Madhavan R., 2001. Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 431-445.
- Goins S., Gruca T.S., 2008. Understanding competitive and contagion effects of layoff announcements. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), 12-34.
- Granovetter M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
- Granovetter M., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.
- Gulati R., 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::aidsmj982>3.0.co;2-m
- Hager M.A., Galaskiewicz J., Larson J.A., 2004. Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprofit organizations. Public Management Review, 6(2), 159-188.
- Hall L., Bagchi-Sen S., 2002. A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry. Technovation, 22(4), 231-244.
- Haythornthwaite C., 1996. Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0740-8188(96)90003-1]. Library & Information Science Research, 18(4), 323-342.
- Helm S., Salminen R.T., 2010. Basking in reflected glory: Using customer reference relationships to build reputation in industrial markets. [doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.012]. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 737-743.
- Ibarra H., 1993. Network Centrality, Power, and Innovation Involvement: Determinants of Technical and Administrative Roles. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471-501.
- Ingram P., Roberts P.W., 2000. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology, 387-423.
- Inkpen A.C., Tsang E.W.K., 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. The Academy of Management Review, 146-165.
- Johnson D., Mareva M., 2002. It's a Small (er) World: The Role of Geography and Networks in Biotechnology Innovation.
- Kilduff M., Tsai W., 2003. Social networks and organizations: Sage Publications Ltd.
- Kim Choi T.Y., Yan T., Dooley K., 2010. Structural Investigation of Supply Networks: A Social Network Analysis Approach. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.001]. Journal of Operations Management, 2010.
- Podolny J.M., 1993a. A status-based model of market competition. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829-872.
- Podolny J.M., 1993b. A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 829-872.
- Ponomariov B.L., Boardman P.C., 2010. Influencing scientists' collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. [doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.013]. Research Policy, 39(5), 613-624.
- Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr L., Owen-Smith J., 1999. Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16(1), 129-159.
- Provan K.G., 1993. Embeddedness, interdependence, and opportunism in organizational supplier-buyer networks. Journal of Management, 19(4), 841-856.
- Purohit D., Srivastava J., 2001. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: A cue diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 123-134.
- Putnam R.D., 1993. The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13(4), 35-42.
- Rao P., 2002. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 632-655.
- Romo F.P., Schwartz M., 1995. The Structural Embeddedness of Business Decisions: The Migration of Manufacturing Plants in New York State, 1960 to 1985. American sociological review, 60(6), 874-907.
- Roy S., Sivakumar K., Wilkinson I.F., 2004. Innovation Generation in Supply Chain Relationships: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 61-79. doi: 10.1177/0092070303255470
- Scott J.P., 2000. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook: SAGE Publications.
- Shan W., Walker G., Kogut B., 1994. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 387-394.
- Shrum W., Wuthnow R., 1988. Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. American Journal of Sociology, 882-912.
- Simsek Z., Lubatkin M.H., Floyd S.W., 2003. Inter-Firm Networks and Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective. [doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00018-7]. Journal of Management, 29(3), 427-442.
- Sivadasan S., Efstathiou J., Shirazi R., Alves J., Frizelle G., Calinescu A., 1999. Information complexity as a determining factor in the evolution of the supply chain'.
- Stuart T.E., Hoang H., Hybels R.C., 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative science quarterly, 315-349.
- Tsai W., 2001. Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.
- Uzzi B., 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American sociological review, 61(4), 674-698.
- Uzzi B., 1997. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative science quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
- Vachon S., Klassen R., 2002. An exploratory investigation of the effects of supply chain complexity on delivery performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(3).
- Wasserman S., Faust K., 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications: Cambridge Univ Pr.
- Wasserman S., Galaskiewicz J., 1994. Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences: Sage Publications, Inc.
- Yu T., Lester R.H., 2008. Moving Beyond Firm Boundaries: A Social Network Perspective on Reputation Spillover. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), 94-108.
- Zhu Q., Sarkis J., Lai K.-H., 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11-12), 1041-1052.
- Cited by
- ISSN
- 1895-2038
- Language
- eng
- URI / DOI
- http://dx.doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2015.4.5