Special Issue concerning process research in business networks

What is it about?

Here are the papers in the special issue: Special Issue - Process thinking in dynamic business networks 1 Poul Houman Andersen, Christopher John Medlin, Jan-Åke Törnroos Re-appraising interaction and process for industrial network research: The future plunging mirror hall metaphor Chris 2 Paul C. van Fenema, Bianca B.M. Keers Rediscovering strategic content in ‘strong process’ research on business network innovation Poul 3 Valtteri Kaartemo, Nicole Coviello, Niina Nummela A kaleidoscope of business network dynamics: Rotating process theories to reveal network microfoundations Poul 4 Christopher Nailer, Gary Buttriss Processes of business model evolution through the mechanism of anticipation and realisation of value Chris 5 Tuomas Ahola, Kirsi Aaltonen, Karlos Artto, Jere Lehtinen Making room to manoeuvre: How firms increase their influence with others in business networks Jan-Ake 6 Seppo Leminen, Anna-Greta Nystrom, Mika Westerlund Change processes in open innovation networks – Exploring living labs Poul The first article “Re-appraising interaction and process for industrial network research: The future plunging mirror hall metaphor”, by Andersen, Medlin, and Törnroos (This issue) addresses temporality throughout but does not define in any specific manner the nature of time, except that temporalities are human constructions. The article presents a social constructivist viewpoint of industrial marketing research of interaction and processes, by providing a broad and encompassing viewpoint from within a metaphorical mirror hall. The metaphor of two mirrors on either side of interactions, business relationships and networks, along with activities, resources and actors, creates an illusory conceptual space of levels. On one side the reflections give concepts and on the other are given the connecting logics, so that together concepts and their connections provide researcher meanings. There are no levels, except those created by researchers. The second article by van Fenema and Keers (this issue), “Rediscovering strategic content in ‘strong process’ research on business network innovation”, presents a constructivist approach to studying processes in business networks according to a pragmatist viewpoint (see footnote currently page 9). No levels is an issue they point to, although they use levels. The purpose of the paper is given as “to re-discover content”, that is strategic content – “business strategy which may drive interorganizational cooperation and modes for achieving this strategy.” Four philosophical viewpoints are discussed (these are like Van- de Ven’s four generative mechanisms of process as described in Kaartemo et al – next paper), and decided is a pragmatist viewpoint that includes process and content encapsulation, where content has a fit to being used to achieve a strategy. Content encapsulation is close to a networked business model concept, but the change to a pragmatic viewpoint necessitates a different meaning. Content encapsulation holds strategy for what Massey (1995, 188) calls an “envelope of space-time”. The third article by Kaartemo, Coviello, and Nummela (This issue), presents “A kaleidoscope of business network dynamics: Rotating process theories to reveal network microfoundations”. The article applies four theoretical approaches to studying processes in business networks according to a realist viewpoint. Applies levels (within net and external to net) to allow distinctions between intentionality (deliberate versus unintentional) and the nature of agency according to how forces and serendipitous happenstances are handled. Taking a realist and structured view allows, according to the authors, noticing deonts (“events that did not happen or structures that did not exist yet influenced network dynamics (Mingers, 2011) through inertia”). The authors suggest to “avoid relying on event-based theorizing in network processes (Halinen et al., 2013).” But to my mind that all depends on the researchers viewpoint. See the last paragraph of the paper. Levels and structure inertia allow seeing something, but also stops seeing something else. In the fourth article Nailer and Buttriss (This issue), following a critical realist viewpoint present “Processes of business model evolution through the mechanism of anticipation and realisation of value”. Critical realist viewpoint. Process is depicted in levels with mechanisms. The fifth article by Ahola, Aaltonen, Artto, and Lehtinen (This issue), following a constructivist viewpoint presents “Making room to manoeuvre: How firms increase their influence with others”. Constructivist viewpoint. This paper deals with changing meanings very strongly. Once can see changing strategic content encapsulations. Also that a constructivist viewpoint enables researchers and practitioners The final article by Leminen, Nyström, and Westerlund (This issue) “Change processes in open innovation networks – Exploring living labs”. Studies the empirical situation of living labs as networks in which there are converging, diverging and parallel processes. The paper is strong on its method approach to studying processes. In particular the idea of the “middle ground”, the place where earlier future projections meet latter past reflections, appears as a useful area for theoretical and method development. References Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Artto, K., & Lehtinen, J. (This issue). Making room to manoeuvre: How firms increase their influence with others in business networks. Industrial Marketing Management. Andersen, P. H., Medlin, C. J., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (This issue). Re-appraising interaction and process for industrial network research: The future plunging mirror hall metaphor. Industrial Marketing Management, doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.06.011. Kaartemo, V., Coviello, N., & Nummela, N. (This issue). A kaleidoscope of business network dynamics: Rotating process theories to reveal network microfoundations. Industrial Marketing Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.004. Leminen, S., Nyström, A.-G., & Westerlund, M. (This issue). Change processes in open innovation networks – Exploring living labs. Industrial Marketing Management. Massey, D. (1995). Places and their pasts. History workshop journal, 39(Spring), 182-192. Nailer, C., & Buttriss, G. (This issue). Processes of business model evolution through the mechanism of anticipation and realisation of value. Industrial Marketing Management. van Fenema, P. C., & Keers, B. B. M. (this issue). Rediscovering strategic content in ‘strong process’ research on business network innovation. Industrial Marketing Management.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The meaning of process is different according to ontology. Much published research ignores this idea, and so conflates studies.

Perspectives