آیا امیدی هست؟ نظریه راهبرد در شبکه‌های کسب و کار

This paper explores some of the implications for the idea of business strategy of the networks of interlocking interdependencies which comprise the business landscape. The paper proposes a framework for analysing the strategic situations facing companies in business networks and for developing business strategy within them. The central message of the paper is that in the complex networks in which companies operate, business strategy cannot realistically be regarded as an individual-company activity. The paper argues that in these circumstances, strategy is more usefully conceived of as a matrix of interdependencies that connects the structure and process of a network and that confronts the existing with the evolving. This structure and process provide an array of evolving possibilities for the choices of any one actor and others, whether they are suppliers, customers, competitors or development partners. The paper argues that the strategy of a single company can usefully be interpreted as part of the process of interaction through which the company and others confront aspects of the status quo with new evolving possibilities, whilst conforming to other existing patterns within the network.

It is commonly asserted that behind every successful company there is a superior strategy. This conventional view of sound strategy is based on core theoretical constructs such as corporate direction, strategic leadership,competition and industry analysis (Porter, 1996; Pettigrew and Wittington, 2002; Grant, 2002). But the idea that sound strategy is the key ingredient in corporatesuccess infers that companies are independent, pro-active organizations that are complete in themselves and that are able to develop and to implement their own strategy. But empirical observation seems to show that companies are not independent. Instead they seem to be enmeshed in networks of complex interlocking interdependencies with each other (Axelsson, 1992; Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2001; Gadde, Huemer and Håkansson 2003; Mouzas, 2006a; Ford and Håkansson, 2006). In this paper we explore some of the implications of these networks of interlocking interdependencies for the idea of business strategy. The paper then proposes a framework for analysing the strategic situations facing companies in business networks and for developing business strategy within them. The central message of the paper is that in the complex networks in which companies operate, business strategy cannot realistically be regarded as an individual-companyactivity. We argue that in these circumstances,strategy is more usefully conceived of as a matrix of interdependenciesthat connects the structure and process of a network and that confronts the existing with the evolving. Network structure and process are the vehiclesfor implementing strategy as well as the source of that strategy. This structure and process provide an array of evolving possibilities for the choices of any one actor and others, whether they are suppliers, customers, competitors or development partners. For example, a producer of consumer non-durable products is embedded in a structure of inter-dependence with suppliers of raw materials and packaging, with distributioncompanies, food researchers, grocery retailers, consumers and others. Through a process of continuousinteraction each of these actors continuously discoverssome of the evolution that is likely or possible in the surrounding network. Each actor may consider what evolution it would or would not want, what that evolution would depend on and which other actors it would involve. In these circumstances the evolution of a single company’s strategy within a complex network is both facilitated and constrained by the evolution of the network as a whole. Thus, the strategy of a single company can be interpretedas part of the process of interaction through which the company and others confront aspects of the status quo with new evolving possibilities, whilst conformingto other existing patterns within the network. For example, a retailer and a manufacturer may seek to develop new products with each other. This aim may mean that the retailer is less able to work closely with other manufacturers that in turn may reduce their financial and advertising support to it and may seek developmentswith a competing retailer. The manufacturer’s new-product cooperation with the retailer may lead it to collaborate with a willing packaging supplier. But that collaboration may conflict with the intentions of a raw material supplier on which the companies have previously depended. The raw material supplier’s unhappinessmay lead the manufacturer to try to develop new relationships directly with companies that had previously been suppliers to the unwilling raw-material supplier. All of the companies involved in these strategicintents and the reactions to them will be based on the actors need to access resources and skills that can only be obtained through relationships with other companies in the surrounding network. In this way the strategic intent of any one company is mediated through the network. Hence, the outcomes for any one actor are less the result of its individualistic strategy and more the result of multiple interaction and interpretation by many companies.

The idea of strategy in business networks is built on the primacy of relationships as corporate assets. Strategy in business networks requires clarity in analysing the current situation of relationships in Cell 1. It involves conscious attempts to develop those relationships, over time and anticipation of and reaction to the aims of others and in Cell 2. It involves realism in multiplying relationships and coping with multiplication by others in Cell 3 and understanding of the resource choices that this involves. Strategic thinking in business networks has to be based on analysis of the strategist’s own picture of the network and those of others and clarity in views of network positions and the issues involved in changing and developingthem. Strategy in networks is a small numbers game. It involves working with, against, through and in-spite of others. It acknowledges that most of the resources and activities on which a company depends are outside of the company and outside its control. It also acknowledges that the direction of the strategist’s own company is the outcome of multiple factors and multiple interactions in Cell 4. The idea of strategy in business networks that we have presented envisages a modest strategist, aware of dependenceas well as strengths and conscious of her own smallness in the network landscape. The modest strategistis aware of the limits to her vision and wisdom, the need to follow as well as lead, to work collectively as well as individually. She is used to coping with situationsas well as directing them. She is conscious of history and the complexity of time, aware of the limits to change- But she retains at least some small hope of success-!