849954 sisus

terfirm cohesion is under scrutiny, by highlightning the behavioural aspects of interorganisational
collaboration.
Introduction
In logistics, there has been growing interest in the network theme among practitioners
and researchers. The network, as defined in this study, is a constellation
of interconnections among actors (e.g. firms, teams, persons). Despite the fact
that infrastructural networks have been widely elaborated in logistical analysis
(see e.g. Lukka and Lensu 1997, Törn 1999, Dornier et al. 1998), more attention
has been recently based on the relationships between the firms. In conventional
infrastructural network models the ties are not explained as relationships but
rather as concrete links. However, it seems that the managerial or strategical
explanation of networks will be gradually replaced by contemporary views in
which the theoretical underpinnings are different: there is a dawning of behavioural
paradigm in logistics science compared to the conventional strategical one
and its dominance. It is thus challenging for the researcher to compare and contrast
the two distinctive worldviews especially in logistics, in which strategic
thinking, represented by SCM, is still in a dominant position.
The major objective of this study is to reveal theoretically some suggestions proposed
by scholars in Industrial Network View (INV) and address their contribution
to enrich the contemporary logistical analysis and theory-making by providing
new mindsets. The work by IMP-Group (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing)
can be regarded as a reflection of INV. Unlike Supply Chain Management,
INV is well-equipped to describe how the firms’ pursue network logic by e.g. expressing
the conformities of network engagement. To position the approach/es
and methods to recent logistical paradigms is also needed.
Indeed, the prevalence of two distinctive paradigmatic explanations in modern
logistics gives theoretical foundations for the analysis. It is assumed that these
two proposals give the researcher different angles for explaining the themes of
interorganisational behaviour, as well as the roles and positions (see Figure 1;
adapted from Christiansen 1998, Kent and Flint 1997, Nikkanen 2003)
56