In the introductory chapter of the book we present the framework for network dynamics and management based on a comprehensive practice-based perspective. The framework serves as platform through which it is possible to figure out the holistic system-like nature of networking. In the framework, we use ideas adapted from the strategy-as-practice research literature and propose a specific networks-as-practice model. The framework introduces three categories of networking practices that we assume to grasp a great deal of inter-organizational interaction: networks-as-coordinated social systems, networks-as-knowledge-creating platforms, and networks-as-value-generating entities.


Social Capital Network Management Network Member Boundary Object Business Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215–234 Retrieved from Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, 8(2), 5–21.Google Scholar
  4. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455 Retrieved from Scholar
  5. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakrabarti, R., Ramos, C., & Henneberg, S. (2013). Network dynamics in the UK pharmaceutical network—A network-as-practice perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 356–371. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.2.179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.1255632.Google Scholar
  10. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586. doi: 10.1002/smj.1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A.-P. (2009). Bridging practice and theory: A design science approach. Decision Sciences, 40(1), 65–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00221.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hsiao, R.-L., Tsai, D.-H., & Lee, C.-F. (2012). Collaborative knowing: The adaptive nature of cross-boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01024.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558. doi: 10.1002/smj.2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363 Retrieved from Scholar
  15. March, J. G. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 201–214. doi: 10.1002/smj.515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108–1136. doi: 10.1177/0149206311407507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295.Retrieved from Google Scholar
  19. Romme, A. G. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simon, H. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Association Review, 68(2), 1–16. doi: 10.2307/1816653.Google Scholar
  21. Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 19–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00437.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship—A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634. doi: 10.1177/0170840606064101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VaasaVaasaFinland
  2. 2.VTT Technical Research Center of FinlandTampereFinland
  3. 3.Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations