849954 sisus

smaller units of the entire supply network and they ‘provide a lower level of
analysis’ as Easton (1992, p.18) puts it. However, network as term is problematic
as it is very difficult – even impossible – to depict its scope. Indeed, Gadde
and Håkanson (2002, p.184) claim that ‘there is no natural network boundary –
any boundary is arbitrary.’ This means that networks are actually borderless;
the dynamics stem from the fact that a researcher should always question the
boundaries of the entity that is scrutinised. Inevitably, it is an extremely difficult
task to create 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.
One of the major pros with INV is that is breaks the conventional thinking is
which the firms as actors are presumed to have either proactive or reactive responses
in interorganisational collaboration (thus in accordance with SRscheme).
In contrast, all the actors tend to have multiactive responses to the
proactive measures or the initialised effects, which mean that they take, leave,
reject, ignore, transfer, or stipulate, while acting or reacting. Hence, they are not
tied to one form of response. Indeed, it is possible to categorise different kinds of
actions and reactions when coping with the question of responses in a network;
e.g. Easton and Lundgren (1992) define five distinctive sequences: reflection,
adaptation, absorption, transmission, and transmutation. Reflection occurs when
an actor is rejecting the changes, while adaptation implies a situation in which
change is managed by negotiations in the dyad, not influencing the other members
of the network. Absorption is close to adoption as a conceptualisation,
since in this response the actor accepts the changes. In the case of transmission,
an actor transmits the effects of change to the other members in the web,
whereas for transmutation it is typical that the receiving actor adapts the
changes but also transmits the changes – and the requirements and obligations
as well – to the rest of the network. In general, Easton and Lundgren (1992)
clearly distinguish between responses in a dyad and responses in a net or network
context. Often, however, the main focus is on chosen dyadic relationship,
and therefore the network reactions (transmission, transmutation) do not have
such a prominent role in analysis. Also, much of the interorganisational behaviour
tends to be rather interpersonal, based on cognitive and social bonds between
the people representing their companies, than purely interorganisational
(compare to table 1).
Table 1 as an initial suggestion explains some of the differences e.g. in terms of
analytical matters between two distinctive perspectives to analyse networks in
62