2 Third Actors Initiating Business Relationships for a Medical Device Start Up: Effect on Network Embedding and Venture Creation Processes

  • Tamara Oukes
  • Ariane von Raesfeld
  • on behalf of the PCDIAB consortium


It is widely recognised that it is essential to the survival and growth of start-ups to initiate, develop and maintain business relationships (e.g. Aaboen, Dubois & Lind, 2011; La Rocca, Ford & Snehota, 2013). Only through establishing business relationships can start-ups embed themselves in the pre-existing developing, producing and using setting (Håkansson, Ford, Gadde, Snehota & Waluszewski, 2009). However, start-ups often experience difficulties in initiating the necessary business relationships (Prashantham & Birkinshaw, 2008). To cope with this challenge, Oukes and Raesfeld (2014) found that a start-up used the mediating function of its partners to initiate new relationships. They showed that after it was made aware of, introduced to or referred to a potential partner by one of its existing partners, the start-up could mobilise valuable resources from new partners.


Health Fund Potential Partner Business Relationship Market Leader Investment Company 
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.



This research was funded through FP7 grant number 305654 from the European Commission to the PCDIAB consortium, .


  1. Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2011). Start-ups starting up: Firms looking for a network. The IMP Journal, 5(1), 42–58.Google Scholar
  2. Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2009). What stimulates business actors to promote others’ business without monetary rewards? Exploratory narrative research on motivation factors. Paper presented at the 24th IMP Conference, Marseilles, France.Google Scholar
  3. Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2011). Reference communication and third actors in the initiation of business relationships. Dissertation, Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  4. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Halinen, A. (2007). The promoting role of third actors in initiating business relationships. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 23rd IMP Conference, Manchester, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  5. Ahuja, G., Polidoro Jr., F., & Mitchell, W. (2009). Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 941–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S. D., & Jack, S. (2010). Network practices and entrepreneurial growth. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bliemel, M. J., & Maine, E. M. (2008). Network embeddedness as a predictor of performance for New Technology-Based Firms. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 1(3), 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edvardsson, B., Holmlund, M., & Strandvik, T. (2008). Initiation of business relationships in service-dominant settings. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in networks. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Holmen, E., & Pedersen, A. (2003). Strategizing through analyzing and influencing the network horizon. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(5), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huggins, R., Izushi, H., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2015). Network evolution and the spatiotemporal dynamics of knowledge sourcing. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(7–8), 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirkels, Y., & Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME networks. Research Policy, 39(3), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamine, W., Jack, S., Fayolle, A., & Chabaud, D. (2015). One step beyond? Towards a process view of social networks in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(7–8), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. La Rocca, A., Ford, D., & Snehota, I. (2013). Initial relationship development in new business ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1025–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mainela, T., Pernu, E., & Puhakka, V. (2011). The development of a high-tech international new venture as a process of acting: A study of the lifespan of a venture in software business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(3), 430–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1129–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.Google Scholar
  21. Oukes, T., & Raesfeld, A. v. (2014). Resource interaction in relation to power: How startups strategize to cope with the challenges of mobilizing and leveraging resources in asymmetrical power relationships. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  22. Oukes, T., & Raesfeld, A. v. (2016). A start up in interaction with its partners. The IMP Journal, 10(1), 50–80.Google Scholar
  23. Prashantham, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Dancing with Gorillas: How small companies can partner effectively with MNCS. California Management Review, 51(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raesfeld, A. v., & Roos, K. (2008). How should a small company interact in its business network to sustain its exchange effectiveness? Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(4), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose, F. (2012). The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries: A theoretic approach. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  26. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  27. Shipilov, A. V., Li, S. X., & Greve, H. R. (2011). The prince and the pauper: Search and brokerage in the initiation of status-heterophilous ties. Organization Science, 22(6), 1418–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simmel, G., & Wolff, K. H. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Snehota, I. (2011). New business formation in business networks. The IMP Journal, 5(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  30. Styhre, A., & Remneland-Wikhamn, B. (2016). Connecting life science entrepreneurs with resources and expertise: The role of iungens brokerage in life science innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(6), 627–638.Google Scholar
  31. Vedel, M., Holma, A.-M., & Havila, V. (2016). Conceptualizing inter-organizational triads. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 139–147.Google Scholar
  32. Wedin, T. (2001). Networks and demand. The use of electricity in an industrial process. Dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  33. Yin, X., Wu, J., & Tsai, W. (2012). When unconnected others connect: Does degree of brokerage persist after the formation of a multipartner alliance? Organization Science, 23(6), 1682–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yli-Renko, H., & Autio, E. (1998). The network embeddedness of new, technology-based firms: Developing a systemic evolution model. Small Business Economics, 11(3), 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara Oukes
    • 1
  • Ariane von Raesfeld
    • 1
  • on behalf of the PCDIAB consortium
  1. 1.Center for Entrepreneurship, Strategy, International Business and Marketing (NIKOS)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations