Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

8. Discussion and conclusions
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti
Results highlight that all five factors are relevant for s<strong>of</strong>t (explorative) networks (see figure 1) and that
<strong>the</strong>re are differences in <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> critical factors for hard and s<strong>of</strong>t networks. Specifically, <strong>the</strong>
factors which behave differently are: economic commitment, proactivity and potential asborptive
capacity (see figure 1 and 2). These three factors play a more relevant role in <strong>the</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t
networks than in hard networks.
absorptive
potential
commitment
proactivity
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Case A Case B
Figure 1: The five dimensions for s<strong>of</strong>t or explorative networks
absorptive
potential
commitment
proactivity
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Case C Case D
Figure 2: The five dimensions for hard or exploitative networks
brokership
brokership
hyerarchical
control
hyerarchical
control
While s<strong>of</strong>t networks (case A and B) show an <strong>of</strong>fensive response to external stimuli, hard networks
(case C and D) show a defensive behaviour. At <strong>the</strong> same time, while s<strong>of</strong>t networks show a higher
degree <strong>of</strong> entrepreneurship development, hard networks do not. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, considering <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong>
equity as an economic commitment dimension, results show that while hard networks show a
medium-low level <strong>of</strong> investment, s<strong>of</strong>t networks invest heavily in network creation and development.
365