849954 sisus

actors. As noted, overreaction e.g. in terms of unexpected adaptation may be
regarded as negative. Nets are subject to risks and strong net identity causes
some conservativism, which can be even perceived positively by the actors (established
value nets and the impact of tacit knowledge). Some prudence in e.g.
handling the arguments for utilising new innovations strengthens the collective
identity created unintentionally by the net members. This partly prevents the risk
of disengagement especially if a net-member represents a single source for the
focal firm/other companies. Co-ordination is conducted not only with contractual
ties but also with subtle tools. With respect to trust, there is evidence that a tendency
to complement – at least partly – verbal agreements by other written rules
and contracts which are subsequently reinforced by appropriate communication,
is prevalent.
Every actor is vulnerable in terms of risks associated with the net presence,
which means that the degree of intimacy has to be on a higher level. Accordingly,
the nets can be defined as entities where the actors share common interests,
and where they, based on internal norms, create common identity. Through
netting (nets as sources for supply networks) the actors create a network identity
which refers to some particular feature, character or activity which is recognised,
interpreted and employed commonly by the actors and which, thus, implies net
level segregation. Through common intentions, net identity labels the actors,
which refers to trusted nets. The identity comprises some distinctive, unique and
identifibiable features which give a means for recognising one particular net in
relation to others. Some degree of cognition on whether the actor recognises
and identifies the difference is needed for net segregation. Nets are tied up with
diverse actors bonds; the strong bonding influences not only how the actors perceive
each other but also how they ‘form their identities in relation to each other‘
(Håkanson, Snehota 1997, p.153).
Conclusions
In contrast to networks, which refer to macro- and industry-level networks, nets
are often developed by intention and formed by a limited number of actors for a
specific purpose, e.g. for increasing value. These nets are occasionally created
strategically and purposefully (technological nets), though more often there can
not be found any particular strive other than intentions. As most companies,
BuyCom as the focal firm in the present explorative case-study is involved and
operates in several nets. Triadic nets, especially in the case in which the in-
123