849954 sisus

a lower level of analysis’, as Easton (1992,18) puts it. From analytical point of
view, it is an extremely difficult task to create even a clear picture of the network,
and subsequently to model the network structure, due to the heterogeneity of the
network actors and the infinite number of relationships. In order to model the
network structure, an appropriate classification method is required. As a unified
entity a network can be split up to sub-categories (smaller units) using appropriate
parameters or perceptions in the classification. In the subdivision process to
smaller nets, such criteria as geographical, technological, functional, (as often in
SCM) or perceptional (as in the network approach) can be valuable. It can be
postulated that a network is actually a constellation of various, partly overlapping
nets including tying actor bonds, which strengthen the relationships and which
the roles/positions are based on. In pragmatic analysis a net is actually often
under consideration, not a network. Occasionally, though, these words – net and
network – are used as synonyms.
In logistics, triads are often in focus; the triad is the smallest unit of a network in
which both direct and indirect relationships are typical; a dyadic relationship contains
just direct relationships. When triads are classified in logistics research, the
involvement of the third actor (practically e.g. forwarder, carrier, TPL provider) is
gradually increased in a dyad; this evolution progresses over time. In practice,
the third party can be either an intermediary, working on behalf of the shipper or
receiver, an integrator, or some other service provider.
Some researchers use the term local network for the subentities of networks because
of the strong geographical connotation they can carry, for two reasons:
first, the different types of embeddedness in related studies, and second because
of the strong geographical features the studies might have (Tikkanen
1997, 70 footnote). Cova et al. (1998, 206) even propose the use of the concept
milieu to distinguish between two types of network which are conceptually identical
but functionally different: the networks of proximity (referring to spatial but
also to cultural and psychological proximity) and transterritorial networks (global
networks).
Perception of appropriate relationships can be a key element in defining the limits
for a focal net; e.g. Salmi (1995, 45) defines a focal net as a ‘net of direct and
indirect interorganisational relationships that the focal firm perceives (...)‘. Accordingly,
the boundaries are identified by the focal firm. In general, a focal net is
briefly a company’s or management’s perception of its contex that are within its
network horizon more than a freely chosen group of actors (Salmi 1995, Möller
and Halinen, 1999). Thus, the major task for the deeper analysis should be to
capture those network relationships that might have relevance for a focal firm.
49