Methods for Developing Innovative SME Networks

The purpose of this paper is to study whether and how to facilitate the creation of new networks and discuss methods for developing innovative small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) networks, or more specifically methods that initiate knowledge mobility and support the development of trustful relationships. Network individual, group, and plenary reflection (IGP), a hybrid dialog method, is developed and utilised to this aim. To answer the research question ‘In what way is Network IGP a method for developing innovative SME networks?’, a case study with longitudinal—mostly qualitative—data and direct participation is conducted in a network of water cleansing SMEs from 2007 to 2013. The answer to the research question is that Network IGP is a method that can be facilitated from the outside to build trustful relationships and initiate mobility of tacit knowledge, especially during the emergence stage, of innovative SME networks. The paper also demonstrates that it is possible to support the emergence and development of SME networks from the outside, building on the participants’ knowledge and history. The paper has theoretical, methodological, and practical implications.


Introduction
Firms are increasingly using networks and other partnering arrangements to accomplish their innovative goals (Gassmann, Enkel and Chesbrough 2010). Networks have been on the socioscientific research agenda for a long time, and the lion's share of this research has focused on questions such as why networks exist, how they emerge and what characterises successful innovative networks. Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) networks have typically been conceived as the result of unanticipated and unplanned coordination between firms with complementary resources and mutual objectives. As Porter (1990: 151) puts it: 'Interconnections (…) often unanticipated, lead to entirely new opportunities. People and ideas combine in new ways.' Another debate in the network literature revolves around the questions of whether networks might be developed through planned intervention from the outside or not. Several scholars (e.g. Swan, Scarbrough and Robertson 2002;Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002) argue that network systems cannot be created directly from the outside, but that it is possible to support their emergence and development. However, 'The idea of directly creating institutional structures or innovation-inducing networks without taking historically formed specific conditions into account, may be an important reason for the failure of many attempts to deliberately create regional innovation systems' (Miettinen 2002 97). Moreover, inside-out development seems to be important to achieve organic growth and internal legitimacy in networks (Human and Provan 2000). Hence, it is a challenge to identify relationships-building methods that can be facilitated from the outside in utilizing the participant's historical knowledge and building the network from the inside. A network is not a static phenomenon and its development may undergo different stages. A network's lifecycle consists, according to Menzel and Fornahl (2009), of the four stages of emergence, growth, sustainment and decline.
Since the mid-1990s, a few action research projects have been carried out with the purpose of facilitating the development of learning-oriented networks by using dialogue-based methods (e.g. Ennals and Gustavsen 1999;Gausdal 2008;Qvale 2008). These methods are developed as hybrid forms of the original search-and dialogue conferences (F. E. Emery and Emery 1974;Gustavsen 1992). Although these studies have offered valuable knowledge about researcher-facilitated network development, they constitute a small amount of studies. As pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of studies on networks direct primary attention to the properties of existing SME networks, disregarding the question of whether and how to facilitate the creation of new ones. Moreover, there is a need for more longitudinal, qualitative, process-and outcome-oriented research on networks (Hoang and Antoncic 2003).
This paper aims to fill these gaps by asking the following research question: In what way is Network IGP a method for developing innovative SME networks?
To answer this question, a longitudinal action-oriented research project to develop a network of water cleansing SMEs has been conducted. The network, Clean Water Norway (CWN), was initiated in 2007. Especially during the emergence stage, Network IGP interventions have been used systematically to build the network from the inside, to build trust-based relationships and to facilitate learning processes between the firms. In the spring of 2013, CWN can be characterized as an innovative network with three active teams, joint technological development projects and increasing interaction and collaboration among its members.
The paper is organised according to the following structure: Firstly, a conceptualizing of the problem and a presentation of the selected case. Secondly, a discussion of the selection of methods for developing the network and a description of Network IGP. Thirdly, the research methods, the findings, and finally, the discussion and the concluding remarks.

Conceptualizing the problem
The purpose of SME networks is to increase the firms' competitiveness and innovativeness through collaboration with other firms and intermediaries (Pittaway, Robertson, Munir, Denyer and Neely 2004). Specifically, the benefits of networking are 'risk-sharing, obtaining access to new markets and technologies; speeding products to market; pooling complementary skills; safeguarding property rights when complete contacts are not possible; and acting as a key vehicle for obtaining access to external knowledge' (Pittaway et al. 2004: 137). To be able to gain such benefits, knowledge mobility is essential. Knowledge mobility means that knowledge needs to be shared, acquired and deployed within the network (Dhanaraj and Pharkhe 2006). Achieving this is a complex, demanding and fragile process. Many firms fail to establish useful collaborations with other firms, and several networks end up as costly failures (Nooteboom 2002;Pittaway et al. 2004). Important reasons behind this seems to be outside-in development (Miettinen 2002), lack of internal legitimacy (Human and Provan 2000) and lack of trustful relationships (Das and Teng 1998;Nooteboom 2002). Trustful relationships represent a crucial condition and prerequisite for knowledge mobility. In addition, the process of knowledge mobility needs to be facilitated. To build such trustful relationships and initiate knowledge mobility is especially important during the first emergence stage of a networks' lifecycle. The research problem is therefore how to support organic development of network relationships from the inside with a sufficient level of trust, and to initiate knowledge mobility, especially during the important emergence stage of the network's lifecycle.
To make the problem even more complex, knowledge, the essential asset in this debate, has various characteristics, representing different challenges to knowledge mobility. There are many ways to typologize knowledge. Some of them are: Tacit and explicit or codified (Nonaka 1994;Polanyi 1966); Know-what, know-why, know-how and know-who knowledge (Lundvall and Johnson 1994). Explicit or codified knowledge is transferable in a formal, systematic language, it is context-independent and can be articulated (Nonaka 1994), captured and stored in writing or in other graphic or symbolic forms. Codified knowledge can be easily transferred from one person and context to another person and context. Tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966) is hard to formalize, highly personal, experienced and context-dependent, it is often taken for granted, and hard to share without social interaction (Nonaka 1994). Knowwhat refers to knowledge about facts, and is close to what is normally called information.
Know-why refers to knowledge about principles and laws of motion in nature, in the human mind and in society, and has been extremely important for technological development. Knowhow refers to skills or capability to do something, in e.g. managerial, scientific and practical work. Know-who involves information about who knows what and who knows what to do. It involves especially the social capability to establish relationships to specialised groups in order to attend their expertise. Know-how and know-who knowledge is not easy to codify or transmit, and is "primarily rooted in practical experience and in social interacting" (Lundvall, 1996: 6).
Explicit and scientific know-what and know-why knowledge is usually available on the internet, in books, reports and journals, and is communicated through teaching, speeches and meetings. Due to its codifying and transferrable features, initiating mobility of explicit knowledge is relatively easy, and not trust-dependent. In contrast, initiating mobility of tacit knowledge is more difficult because of its tacit and informal features. In order to understand, use or implement explicit knowledge, you may, however, need some tacit knowledge in the form of prior skills or competences (Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz and Lundvall 2007). 'This implies that codified knowledge that stands alone is not economically useful' (Jensen et al. 2007 :681). The most important knowledge is therefore often in the complementarity between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Social interaction, collaboration and trust are necessary preconditions to externalizing and sharing tacit knowledge. The most important challenge, and consequently the focus in this paper, is how to initiate knowledge mobility of tacit knowledge.
Trust building in the context of SME networks may be facilitated by the processes of connections, communication, direction, temporary groups and resource-sharing (Gausdal The technologies include water filtration membranes, UV radiation, biological watercleansing processes and energy-efficient recycling of sludge and industrial waste water. In 2010, the first R&D projects to utilize nanotechnology were initiated. The customer base comprises public sewer plants, public water purification plants, construction firms, different kinds of industries producing waste water, shipping firms and relief organizations. There is a significant growth potential in this industry as the global demand for clean water and the need for reuse and energy-efficient water cleansing is rapidly increasing. Because all life is dependent on water, and fresh water is a limited resource on the globe, the market is also a lasting one. CWN is funded by membership fee, VRI-and Arena grants. The membership fee was introduced in 2008 after the first general assembly. The funding from VRI and Arenanational programs offering economic and professional support -started respectively in August 2007 and November 2011. The purpose of VRI is to increase regional innovation by developing and utilizing methods to increase interaction and innovation, and to stimulate the use of R&D. VRI is financed by the Norwegian Research Council (RCN) and by the County.
The Arena program supports long-term development of regional industry clusters with the purpose of stimulating increased innovation based on cooperation among firms, R&D, universities and public stakeholders. Arena status, which is financed by Innovation Norway, SIVA (The Industrial Development Corporation of Norway) and RCN, represents a quality mark of innovative networks.
In the spring of 2013, the organizational structure of CWN consists of a network coordinator, a board, three teams, a web site, articles of association, general assemblies, network meetings, professional trips and network-based innovation brokering. The position of network coordinator, which amounted to 20 -30% occupation in the period from 2007-2011, has been increased to 100% as from November 2011. The board consists of five members -all firm representatives, and two observers -Innovation Norway and VRI representatives. The teams, 2007 as a regional network in the Vestfold region, 100 km south-west of Oslo, denoted as 'The Norwegian Water Cluster' (NWC). In 2010 it merged with a more widespread water network, CWN, to 'CWN-NWC'. The merger enlarged the catchment area to the whole Oslofjord Region. The merged organization kept the NWC organizational structure, including the coordinator. In 2011, the general assembly decided to change the English name to 'CWN' (to avoid confusing the reader, the network is referred to as CWN throughout this paper.) CWN has organized 3-5 network meetings a year since 2007, with the purpose of conveying information, sharing knowledge, building relationships and creating enthusiasm. From the very start, and currently still, the main challenges for the CWN member firms were lack of competence and need for recruitment, too little technological innovation, fierce competition from foreign stakeholders and lack of focus on the demand of water and the water cleansing industry in the political and public national debates.

Selecting method to facilitate the network development
Several dialogue-based process methods might be used to solve the research problem; searchand dialogue conferences have been particularly dominant. Search conferences were developed to promote democratic change processes in organizations and to let members of the organization discover the same organizational reality, so that they could act jointly on the basis of this discovery (F. E. Emery and Emery 1974). A search conference is a participative event where twenty to forty people from an organization work progressively for two or three days on creating plans and projects, alternating between small-group work sessions and largegroup plenary sessions. An important design principle is that each participant is given the opportunity to voice his or her opinion, and to take active part in defining organizational realities and goals. The outcomes range from changes in work organizations, through innovation and new strategies for growth, to inter-firm alliances (M. Emery 1999). Dialogue conferences were also developed as a practical response to challenges associated with power asymmetries in large organizations, (Gustavsen 1992). Dialogue conferences were developed during the 1980s to generate more competitive workplaces, and to hinder managers from dominating the discussions with employees. Like search conferences, dialogue conferences involve techniques for identifying and summoning together organizational stakeholders for conferences. Dialogue conferences present, however, specific design features such as a strictly regulated allocation of speaker time and the rotation of participants in small-groups.
The original search-and dialogue process methods were characterised by a certain degree of 'purism' with a focus purely on democratic dialogues. In recent years, these original methods have been complemented by 'hybrid' methods, building on the dialogue-and search conferences, and integrating other elements to complement and adjust the processes to the context. Hybrid methods are characterised by a greater degree of differentiation than their original methods, combining dialogue processes with other process methods to foster collaboration, collaborative learning and joint action. For instance, in developing a network of chemical process firms, dialogue conferences were combined with panel debates between firm representatives and local politicians, along with video-animations showing a shared vision for the firms (Qvale 2008). In developing a network in the electronics industry, the hybrid method of Network reflection (Gausdal 2008) was developed. Network reflection, which is a system of several interventions, is a pedagogical method for inter-organizational, part-time management education that seems to have a capacity to build relationships, develop business networks into learning networks (Gausdal 2008), and build interpersonal trust (Gausdal 2012). In this paper, reflecting tasks, the method's core activity, are further developed from network reflection as Network IGP, illustrated below. The common denominator of these hybrid methods is that elements from different methodological sources are combined in order to handle practical challenges associated with developing the networks and the specific context.
Several dialogue process-methods may be used to facilitate the inside-out development of SME networks. Each method is developed in a specific historical context as a response to handling specific challenges, and their strengths and weaknesses translate into positive or negative results depending on the specific context in which they are utilised. When selecting among process methods one should therefore focus on the specific challenges at hand and carefully select the methods most appropriate for handling them. Firstly, in SMEs the firms are small and the managers and employees are generally very busy. They are not able or willing to spend two or three days participating in extensive dialogue and search conferences to develop a network that perhaps might be useful in the future. The dialogue events must therefore be short and efficient and should not last longer than a half day. Secondly, when initiating a network, the firm representatives are generally strangers to each other. An important task is therefore to help people connect and build relationships, and to facilitate trust building between them.
Clean Water Norway (CWN) holds several particular contextual features that should be properly considered. Most of the firms are non-hierarchical and employ highly educated engineers and researchers who participate actively in developing the firms. The main challenge in these firms is not to create strong collaborative processes between managers and employees, but rather to improve the innovative capacity of the firm and to win larger and more challenging customer projects. Moreover, the technical engineering-dominated culture calls for strictly structured processes. Network IGP was developed to fit such a context and selected to facilitate the development of the CWN network.

The Network IGP method
Network IGP is inspired by dialogue conferences (Gustavsen 1992), cooperative learning (Johnsen and Johnsen 1994) and reflection (Schön 1983). It is deduced from network reflection (Gausdal 2008) and developed by the author. IGP is an acronym for Individual, Group and Plenary reflections. Network IGP holds a combination of individual and collective reflection on a given topic, problem or question. Divided into inter-organizational groups of 3-6, the participants start out with a short preparing process. This process includes saying what their names are, which firm/organization they represent, their position in the firm and sharing some safe personal information, for instance how many years they have been working in their firm, where they live, their favourite leisure activity or their plans for the next holidays. The roles of group manager and secretary are then assigned among the group members by using a random technique, for instance the persons that travelled the longest and the shortest way in their last holiday. Then the process continues with individual reflection in a given time, for instance three minutes, on a given topic, problem or question. A collective group reflection ensues, time-controlled, e.g. 30 minutes. The collective group reflection starts with talking rounds, where the participants share their ideas and suggestions from their individual reflection one by one with limited talking time (1-2 minutes) for each person on each round. During the talking rounds, nobody interrupts each other. The participants are allowed to ask clarifying questions, but not to contradict others. The collective group reflections proceed with normal discussion, group reflections, perhaps prioritizing of answers, and finally the group's answer to the given topic, problem or question is arrived at. The group is given a definite time to meet in a plenary session for presenting their result. The plenary reflection consists of short presentations, for instance two minutes, of the answers to the given topic, problem or question from each group. These presentations may be followed up by a plenary prioritizing and/or discussion.
A Network IGP process may have different length. The choice of length of the total process and of the different phases depends, among other factors, on the aim of the process, the complexity of the topic, problem or question, the use of technological facilities and the time available. It may last from 10 minutes to a whole day. The phases of Network IGP, their content and length are presented in table 1. For more details about Network IGP, see Appendix 1.

5-30 min
The process facilitator

Research methods
The research methods are a combination of case study (Eisenhardt 1989;Yin 1984) with longitudinal data (Pettigrew 1990), direct participation and action research (Reason and Bradbury 2001a). By summarizing the empirical richness of a single case, this study provides a first step towards the formulation of a theory. According to Siggelkow (2007 21), 'Inductive research strategy that lets theory emerge from the data can be a valuable starting point'.
Because a single case provides the opportunity for unusual research access allowing exploration in a specific population (Yin 1984), it also allows the exploration and the detailed description of a phenomenon (Siggelkow 2007). Even if a multiple-case study typically provides a stronger base for theory-building (Yin 1984), a single-case study may be a very powerful example providing a more convincing argument about causal forces than broad empirical research (Siggelkow 2007). As Greenwood and Levin (1998) have pointed out, action researchers typically collaborate with members of a community or organization(s) who are seeking to improve their situation. In this process, they both participate in and write about the actions that are necessary to achieve such improvements. Since the author of this paper was the main researcher and facilitated most of the interventions herself, she brought together action and reflection, theory and practice in participation with others. These are, according to Reason and Bradbury (2001a), the very features of action research.
This study includes mostly qualitative data from interviews, direct participation, observations, document studies and interventions, along with some quantitative data from a roster rating questionnaire (Wasserman and Faust 1994).  Table 2 provides a timeline of the network meetings, the applied method and the role of the researchers. The questionnaire informants were the CEOs or middle managers in the firms. Eight of the indepth interviews were conducted on a stratified sample of key informants -CEOs and middle managers -from 2008 to 2010. The ninth interview was conducted in 2011 as a group interview with seven informants from the network board. Most (seven out of nine) of the indepth interviews were performed by two researches, and two by one researcher. All the indepth interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The collection of data was carried out through informed consent. In reporting the results, informants and firms were made anonymous. The document studies consist of minutes, emails and planning documents from the emergence stage of the network, the VRI application, agenda and minutes from all the board-, network-and team meetings, task-notes from all the Network IGP processes, a CWN report, the Arena application and the CWN website (www.vannklynge.no).
Finally, a telephone-based roster rating questionnaire (Wasserman and Faust 1994) was carried out on the CWN participants -with 100% response rate -in the spring of 2008 (N=22). The purpose of this questionnaire was to document changes in interaction between the firms during the emergence stage. Interaction was measured by using Hansens ' (1999) scale for frequency of contact and feeling of closeness, which represents a further development of Granovetters' (1973) scale.

Results
Before CWN was established in 2007, there was relatively little interaction between the firms (Gausdal and Hildrum 2012). Some firms knew about each other, some had established bilateral relationships, but outside of these there was fairly little contact. The first initiative to establish the network was taken in January 2007 by the directors of a local business development organization (TU), the regional branch of the national employers' association (NHO) and researchers from Vestfold University College (VUC). The first step was mapping out potential participant organizations and inviting them to a meeting in order to explore opportunities for creating a new network. The exploratory meeting showed that the participants experienced very similar challenges, and that they did wish to participate in a joint regional network organization. Therefore, a temporary board was established, a funding application was submitted to the VRI program, and a first web-site was launched. In order to develop the network further, Network IGP was used systematically at several meetings, especially during the emergence stage. Usually the board meetings were not managed with the help of any methods, but in February 2010 the board requested the author to facilitate the meeting by using Network IGP. It was not an ordinary board meeting, but a whole-day meeting between the CWN and the NWC boards to discuss a possible merger between the two networks.
To handle the maturity of the network, the merger between NWC and CWN, and to prepare

Findings
The research problem is how to support organic development of network relationships from the inside with a sufficient level of trust, and to initiate mobility of tacit knowledge, especially Social events play a key role in stimulating trusting relations, which are reinforced by performing such events off-site (Krogh 1998). The fact that all the network and team meetings were located to different plants may therefore also have influenced the building of trust. The connection effect of Network IGP is discussed in the 'relationship-building' section above. This quotation points at how the group work in Network IGP contributes to sharing, acquiring, creating and deploying knowledge between network members, which is in accordance with the definition of knowledge mobility. Also, parts of the quotations from the relationship building section, e.g. 'to hear all points of view' and 'understand what they actually engage in' reveals that knowledge mobility is initiated. Other findings that indicate knowledge mobility going on are CEOs and middle managers sharing their knowledge in temporary groups at network meetings, contacting each other to discuss joint customer projects and starting sharing challenges and collaborating in several joint R&D projects.
Moreover, the systematic use of Network IGP in this case resulted in relatively frequent and close interactions at the network and at the team level. Abrams et al. (2003) argue that frequent close interactions may lead people to care about each other and to better understand each other's expertise.
These quotations and facts about the joint activities indicate that knowledge mobility has indeed been initiated. The quotations, moreover, indicate that the 'group work' or 'method', which aims at Network IGP, may have contributed in initiating this mobility of tacit knowledge.

Discussion
The findings chapter shows that Network IGP contributed in building network relationships, trust, and initiating the mobility of tacit knowledge. This chapter starts out discussing how each phase of Network IGP may have influenced these findings.
During the preparing process phase, the participants work face-to-face in inter-organizational groups, saying what their names are, which firm/organization they represent, their position in the firm and sharing some safe personal information. A minimum degree of participation in word-of-mouth trust, which is about reputation and motivates people to connect, is required before people can induce any cooperation (Dellarocas 2003). To initiate relationships in networks it is important to make people connect. Abrams et al. (2003) emphasize the value of face-to-face contact, making interactions meaningful and memorable. To initiate collaboration, low-risk activities are proposed (Das and Teng 1998). Abrams et al. (2003) point out that non-work connections help people to relate to each other on a larger ground than just on an instrumental basis; individuals come across as more 'real' and hence safer, something that reduces vulnerability. Further, Abrams et al. (2003) argue that the discovery of a common background -e.g. education and family status, common values and predispositions -contributes to the building up of such connections. Therefore, the preparation process of Network IGP consists of sharing some personal information, as one of the participants commented: You have to say something personal about yourself' (CEO, system developer, 2008). In the preparing process phase the participants therefore start developing know-who knowledge about each other and developing word-of-mouth trust.
During the individual reflection phase the participants reflect on a given topic, problem or question. To increase the learning effect 'It is critical that this reflection alone be allowed to happen on the manager's [i.e. participant's] own terms' (Mintzberg 2004: 255). Hence the topic, problem or question they are asked to reflect upon when using network IGP must be developed carefully to match the participants' own context. Therefore, in this case, much effort has been put into the formulation of the topic, problem or question as clearly and appropriately as possible. Individual reflection is an important part of the individual learning circle (Kolb 1984). Reflection is a partly conscious cognitive process about learning from experience (Schön 1983), and an active and purposeful process of exploration and discovery, often leading to unexpected outcomes (Gray 2007). It is, moreover, a way to make tacit knowledge more explicit and shareable. As the participants are practitioners, and their experiences and actions are essential in the interventions, reflection-on-action is very likely to occur. According to Schön (1987: 28), when we reflect-on-action we think back to discover how our knowing-in-action may have contributed the outcome. I believe the 'externalization of tacit knowledge' effect of network IGP is partly due to the reflection processes. The individual reflection phase therefore results in individual learning and starts externalizing of tacit knowledge.
During the collective group reflection phase, the participants first share their ideas and suggestions from their individual reflection, then they discuss and reflect together and finally arrive at the group's answer to the given topic, problem or question. This method of utilizing participants' actual experiences in conjunction with guided reflections and interorganizational tasks enables the participants to create and share local explicit and externalized tacit knowledge. They also practise collaborative communication. When the participants share their ideas during this phase, they often do this by telling stories from their own experience.
Storytelling presents information in a very interesting way which helps people create order out of a chaotic world, and it is an important part of collective learning (Ramsey 2005).
According to the performative collective learning circle (Ramsey 2005), one story often inspires another story, and sharing stories enables people to coordinate understanding and meaning, which in turn influences joint action and collective learning. Cooperation, like the one in the group work, results in promotive interaction as individuals encourage and facilitate each other's efforts to learn (Johnsen and Johnsen 1994). I argue that this altogether constitutes an important way to initiate knowledge mobility.
When the participants share common narratives, visions, mind-sets they may build cognitive trust (McAllister 1995). Because of a joint topic, problem or question the group members have some common goals. Such groups seem, according to Lewin (1935), to create interdependence among its members, resulting in the group becoming a 'whole' with an intrinsic tension among the members to reach the goals. This feeling of wholeness and unity creates emotional bonding and relationships (Johnsen and Johnsen 1994). The best context for creating personal connections is small groups (Krogh et al. 2000), hence the group work emerges as an important condition for building relationships. During this group reflection phase the participants interact over short, intense periods in temporary groups with stable and standardized roles and clearly defined tasks which may develop swift trust. Working in such groups with common goals may, furthermore, develop a feeling of wholeness and unity that creates emotional bonding. The collective reflection phase, therefore, results in collective learning, know-what -, know-why -, know-how -and know-who knowledge, cognitive and swift trust, emotional bonding and initiation of knowledge mobility.
During the plenary reflection phase the groups give short presentations, for instance two minutes, of their answers to the given topic, problem or question. These presentations were often followed up by a plenary discussion and decision, thereby giving the participants a joint direction. The collective reflection phase may therefore result in some know-what -, knowwhy -, know-how -and know-who knowledge, trust and knowledge mobility.
This discussion of how each phase of Network IGP may influence the findings is summarized in table 3. The management can also be a bit too invasive, but I will not argue that this is the case here (CEO, system developer, 2009). In conclusion, using the power inherent to the role of facilitators to get the participants to use Network IGP seems to be a way of taking the lead which the participants accept and acknowledge.
The challenge in this context was to find a method to build relationships, trust and initiate knowledge mobility among mostly strangers in an engineering-dominated culture, in a short and efficient way, to improve the firms' innovative capacity. I argue that Network IGP, with processes lasting about 60 minutes, succeeded in doing this in a remarkably short and efficient way. The main difference between network IGP and dialogue conferences is that the former is a more flexible, faster method with a more pronounced time structure. A method with a strong structure seemed to suit the engineering context well, as one of the participants confirmed: You manage the meetings in a structured way (….) I am very much an engineer, and I like structure and two underscores answers, so for me this works very well' (middle manager, system developer, 2008).
Of course, the study has some limitations. Other plausible alternative explanations than Network IGP may also have influenced the results. One can argue that simply by bringing the groups together with a common purpose there would be a desire and an impetus to successfully cooperate. I argue, however, that intervention methods to connect them are crucial. Moreover, the reason why the results were achieved in this particular case may also be due to contingent features, e.g. the industry, the situation in NWC, the participants' personality and the influence by the researchers and the network manager. As the findings and discussion show, the use of the Network IGP method appears to have made a significant and well-documented difference in this case. Nevertheless, it would be valuable to utilize the method in a different setting. Although Network IGP is not yet a fully developed concept, further conceptualizing is both necessary and auspicable in the future.

Concluding remarks
The research question is 'In what way is Network IGP a method for developing innovative SME networks?' and the research problem is how to support organic development of trustful network relationships from the inside, and to initiate knowledge mobility. In this case Network IGP was used systematically, especially during the emergence stage, to develop CWN, a regional innovative SME network within water cleansing technology. At the network level, it was used intensively the first six months, and then only once until the strategy process 2 ½ years later. At the team level, Network IGP was used intensively to start up two of the teams, but not for the third one. The two teams that used Network IGP have had a higher continuity than the third one, but this may also be due to a lot of other factors. At the board level, Network IGP has only been used once, on request at the merger meeting. The findings and discussion indicate that Network IGP has a potential to develop trustful network relationships and to initiate mobility of tacit knowledge, especially during the emergence stage. The use of Network IGP entails a relatively strong process management, which in this case was recruited from the outside. The Network IGP process was mainly employed to let the SMEs themselves develop and agree to the network's vision, aims, strategy, activity plans and priorities. It is therefore a process that enables an inside-out development, which seems to be an important factor for the achievement of organic growth and internal legitimacy in networks (Human and Provan 2000). Moreover, it appears that Network IGP constitutes a relationships-building method that can be facilitated from the outside in utilizing the participant's historical knowledge, and in building the network from the inside. Such organic growth, internal legitimacy-building and building of networks from the inside are important factors for the lasting and innovative success of networks (Human and Provan 2000). The answer to the research question is therefore that Network IGP is a method that can be facilitated from the outside to build trustful relationships and to initiate mobility of tacit knowledge, especially during the emergence stage of innovative SME networks.
This paper has theoretical, methodological and practical implications. The theoretical contributions are the outline of activities and processes resulting in building trustful relationships and initiating mobility of tacit knowledge in SME networks. This paper, moreover, contributes with the development and conceptualization of the hybrid dialogue method Network IGP. It also demonstrates that it is possible to support the emergence and development of SME networks from the outside, building on the participants' knowledge and history. Furthermore, this paper contributes methodologically by implementing a longitudinal, qualitative, process-and outcome oriented research on networks, which is auspicated by Hoang and Antoncic (2003). The practical implication is that the Networks IGP method is one way to create regional innovative SME networks. The method itself and its implementation may be useful for SMEs, SME networks and politicians engaged in innovation and SME development. It may also be useful for universities and consultants as a contribution to the creation of innovative SME networks.

APPENDIX 1 Network IGP details
A Network IGP process can use different technological facilities. The group work usually generates a lot of energy, and to maintain this energy through the whole process, short presentations in the plenary are recommended. Network IGP may use low-and high-tech facilities. The low tech versions include pens, felt pens, paper sheets, black-or whiteboard, 'post-it' notes, overhead projector and/or flip-over sheets. The high tech versions include computers, PowerPoint or other presentation tools, video projectors, flat-screens, big softscreens and/or remote nodes. The choice of technology depends on the process length, the participants' competence, the available technology and the way in which the results are used afterwards.
Network IGP requires a process facilitator, a group manager and a group secretary. The process facilitator manages and facilitates the process, presents the topic, problem or question to the participants before the process starts, divides the participants into groups, informs about the rules and the amount of time for the group process and plenary presentation, and conducts the plenary reflection. Furthermore, the facilitator sets up the criteria for pointing out the group manager and the secretary. In addition to the oral information, a task-note is usually also given to each participant. The group secretaries lead the individual and group reflections in each group. The secretaries are usually ordinary group members, but when working with demanding, complex or large problems external, trained group-secretaries may be more appropriate. The manager asks the participants to start with individual reflection and stops them when the time is due. He or she manages the talking rounds by asking each participant to share their ideas, stopping them after the allotted time. In addition, the manager leads the discussion and makes sure that the group write down their result in given time. The secretary is responsible for writing down the result on the given technology, and of course for presenting them. Bring out what it is about, the results we are going to achieve, who are the participants, who is going to do what when.