The trend of outsourcing and concentrating on core competencies has made
enterprises increasingly interdependent in terms of abilities and expertise (Dyer and Singh, 1998;
and Powell, 2001). Inter-organizational cooperation in which enterprises combine
their knowledge and know-how in new ways is fertile ground for innovation
(Nooteboom, 2000). It is, therefore, of little surprise that the importance of business networks as
a source of business expertise has grown in recent years (Tsupari et al., 2001 and 2004) and drawn growing attention as a means to implement strategy (Håkansson and
Snehota, 2006).
Mutual learning within a network presents considerable challenges, and this is
more so in a network comprised of businesses with different histories and
competencies and conflicting goals. In contrast, at the intra-organizational level, these goals cannot
be changed by simple boardroom decision, but must be met with trust, persuasion
and high-powered market-based incentives (e.g., Andersen and Christensen, 2000). A
network enterprise has the right, and even the duty, to withdraw from cooperation if
dissatisfied, for example, with the level of expected investment or the sharing of risks and profits.
It takes time for the parties to learn to trust each other, to work together and also to
be ready to implement changes to their own operations and practices as and when it
is required. In practice, this involves learning at multiple levels: cooperation
requires changes within the network, within the individual enterprise, and within
bilateral relationships between enterprises (Heikkilä et al., 2005).
The network's enterprises are thus faced with a challenge: How to create an
innovative business model that spans inter-organizational boundaries in a satisfactory and
acceptable manner to all parties? In literature, this type of activity towards a common goal by
separate entities and individuals requires cross-boundary learning a kind of a learning
considered to require the use of `boundary objects' to facilitate the spanning of boundaries
between communities (Star and Griesemer, 1989; communities of practice, Brown and
Duguid, 1991; communities of knowing, Boland and Tenkasi, 1995). A boundary object
facilitates mutual exchange of knowledge between different parties. Star and Griesemer
(1989) describe four types of boundary objects: (1) the standardized form, (2) the
common repository (e.g., library), (3) the coincident boundary, and (4) the ideal type. The ideal
type is an abstract description or scheme of fundamental concepts, which is adaptable
to different situations for the purpose of describing concrete details about different
parties. Ideal types are models that can be used to facilitate the exchange of ideas
between cooperating partners. |