Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Eva Eckenh<strong>of</strong>er
participants create complexities. Therefore, governance is desirable because <strong>the</strong> needs and activities
must be accommodated and coordinated. Ano<strong>the</strong>r condition for <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> governance is <strong>the</strong>
shared competencies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organizations or network members for coordinating tasks according to
<strong>the</strong>ir competencies. Provan and Kenis (2005, 2007) proposed four forms <strong>of</strong> network governance:
Participant-Governed Networks, Lead Organization Governed Networks, Network Administration
Organization (NAO) (separate administrative entity), Hybrid Forms <strong>of</strong> Network Governance. The forms
<strong>of</strong> governance partly evolve and partly are given depending on <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> network.
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> governance may change as <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> network grows or network tasks are
becoming more complex (Provan and Kenis, 2007).
4. Network management in praxis
Using semi-structured interviews, nine Austrian experts were asked about network basics, <strong>the</strong>ir
personal opinion on network development, fostering and management and about network
management in <strong>the</strong>ir company. The average duration <strong>of</strong> every interview was 45 minutes and <strong>the</strong>
interviews were recorded and transliterated verbatim. In order to follow a structuring interpretation <strong>of</strong>
qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2000), a criteria was defined to serve as a basis for <strong>the</strong> analysis.
For every variable different codes (flexible characteristics) were set and defined (see third and fourth
column in table 1). The qualitative content analysis summarizes <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> times a variable had a
specific characteristic (see <strong>the</strong> last column in table 1).
It can be observed in table 1 that <strong>the</strong> reason for developing a network (Variable 1) is never a problem;
but ra<strong>the</strong>r, it is triggered by a new project or <strong>the</strong> corporate goal. From <strong>the</strong> responses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experts
interviewed, it was revealed that network development is never left totally to chance; but to some part,
experts totally act strategically and to ano<strong>the</strong>r part, both strategic and open to unexpected or future
eventualities (Variable 2).
As indicated by <strong>the</strong> experts, <strong>the</strong> main network development approach (Variable 3-6) is indirect - over
contacts and if this fails, <strong>the</strong> direct approach is used. A clear result is given for network management
which is never done formally, but from all those interviewed, it was found to be done in an informal
manner. This goes in line with network fostering, which is never done by just telephone and email, but
ei<strong>the</strong>r through personal contacts or by telephone, email and personal contacts. Even though five
interviewees answered that <strong>the</strong> position <strong>of</strong> a network manager should be created in <strong>the</strong> company, no
one actually could tell <strong>the</strong> successful implementation <strong>of</strong> such a position. One expert described an
experience from a project, which was aimed at introducing a network manager, but failed due to <strong>the</strong>
fear <strong>of</strong> losing power.
Networking is organized in <strong>the</strong> companies mainly by databases, address directories, CRM-Databases
and internal un<strong>of</strong>ficial meetings, which are used to clarify <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> contacts (Variable 7).
Concerning network governance (Variable 8) <strong>the</strong> answers were not coherent - whe<strong>the</strong>r it is <strong>the</strong> duty <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> management, every employee or teams and project. This seems to be problematic, as it was
unclear as to who should manage <strong>the</strong> networks and who is responsible for it. The most important
protection method (Variable 9) against loss or drop out <strong>of</strong> network parts due to retirement or
fluctuation seems to be by internal networks. Protection by network illustration and lists was
mentioned three-times.
The main effects <strong>of</strong> networking (Variable 10) according to <strong>the</strong> experts were not only in <strong>the</strong> information
benefits and <strong>the</strong> fulfilment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> corporate goal, but also in <strong>the</strong> efficiency improvement and
contribution to market position and turnover.
5. Discussion
The network management models, which were presented in part 3, seem to be quite different at <strong>the</strong>
first glance, though <strong>the</strong>y show several similarities. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> models do not deal with <strong>the</strong> network
management in general - about <strong>the</strong> work within a network, but about how <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
network evolves or emerges. Figure 2 gives an overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> above mentioned network
management models.
244