849954 sisus

Coupling the infrastructural analysis with the ideas of the social network theory,
a definition of a particular network is reached; that is ‘a network is a configuration
of facilities between nodes allowing the entities to interact between the
nodes‘ (Kamann 1998, 66), where
facility = link, tie, relation, or connection,
node = origin or destination at a facility (nodes can be either physical
nodes or human actors), and
entity = good, vehicle, container, service, information, or power.
The description of Kamann (1998) is in accordance with the most applied frame
for depicting networks as systems. As stated above, in conventional network
analysis systems are defined through nodes and links. Accordingly, the link is a
physical facility for moving goods with vehicles. Extending the traditional perspective,
for Kamann also the relation can be a facility.
Operationalising the term entity can be difficult because it is not easy to create a
direct linkage between the wordings of social sciences (like power or control) to
tangible factors without a radical change in the analytical approach. Nevertheless,
the value of the conceptualisation by Kamann (1998) is in the comprehensive
packaging of the two main components: the social (human) and physical
(infrastructural).
As noted above, in the logistics science the network analysis is conventionally
based on two profound components between nodes: the physical flow of goods
and the information flow attached. In order to deepen the analysis, the basic
constellation has to be supplemented with non–traditional ingredients, which
thus requires a combination of attributes (the entities) from social sciences
(power, role). In addition, an evaluation of connectors – such like links, ties, or
bonds - is needed in order to understand the cohesive forces and determinants
of the network structure. For this reason actor bonds and other tying elements
are identified and analysed more accurately.
As regards the Scandinavian network research representing the industrial network
view, there is an abundancy of examples of successful use (e.g. Woxenius
1998 in intermodal context, Andersson et al. 1994 assessing the dyad in the
network). The theoretical background is derived from the IMP-Group’s pioneering
work (Ford et al. 1998). Though there are a lot of differences in details, the
researchers share the same theoretical background also on the metatheoretical
level, although metatheoretical thinking is not explicitly embedded with these
26