Structure Firm Structure

Level Individual Level

Social Social
capital
Capital individual
firm Level level
Vicky Apriansyah
Introduction
Collaboration Bioteknologi Patenting

examine the link between social capital and intellectual

output in the context of the biotechnology industry, a
knowledge-intensive and expanding field

interorganizational collaboration is commonplace in the

industry

collaborative capital will lead to patents and that this

intellectual capital leads to subsequent collaboration,
finding support for these claims
Collaboration and social capital
Network and social capital are closely intertwined
concepts.

In studies of inter-organizational relations, social capital

has at least three variants
1. an individual may be a member of more then one
organization.
2. individual members of organizations can have social
ties to members of other organizations, arising
through friendsip or common membersip in trade
asosociations or social clubs
3. arising from formal organization-to- organization ties
Collaboration and social capital
The collaborative capital reflected in a firm’s central
location in a network of organizations goes beyond
the straight exchange advantage of having many
partners (who in turn also have partners).

Firm steeped in collaborative capital are able to

combine partners and resaources in novel ways,
fostering inclusivity and widening avenues of
competition (Koput, Smith-Doerr, and powell 1997).
Hypothesize
 H1: The greater a firm’s network centrality in a given year (Controlling
for its overall number of ties and R&D alliances), the more
patents it will obtain in the subsequent year.

 H2: The more patents a firm obtains in a given year, the more centrally
connectedthe firm subsequently becomes (cotrolling for the overall
number of ties and R&D alliaces).

 H3: The more principle patents a firm holds in a given year (controlling
for its overall number ties and R&D alliances), themore centrally
connected the firm becomes in the subsequent year.

 H4: The more principle patents a firm holds in a given year (controlling
for its overall number ties and R&D alliances), the more total
patents it will hold un the subsequent year.
RESULTS

Collab
Experience

R&D Ties

Patent
Centrality
Activity
Network
Diversity
Vicky Apriansyah
Introduction
The focus of this chapter is on interorganizational supply
network and, specifically, the social capital and liability
within them.

Supply network are sub-network nested within

interorganizational network that include the actors,
resources and activities associated with value adding
processes converting resources to goods and services

Supply is Defined here from the operations perspective as

the value adding transformation processes involved in the
conversion of input resources to provide goods or services
The Concept of supply
Levels of supply ( adapted from Harland 1996a)
Level 1 : Supply within the firm boundary

Level 2 : Supply in a dyadic relationship

Level 3 : Supply in an interorganizational chain

Level 4 : Supply in an interorganizational network

Level 1 : Supply within the firm boundary

The management of supply within the firm boundary

involves the integrations of the processes from the
input side of the firm to the output side.

In a manufacturing organization this requires

integration across the functions dealing with physical
and information flows
Advantages of vertical integration Disvantages of vertical integration

Control : uncertainly reduction of cost, quality Limiting competition : inability to replicate

and quantity of supply, convergent expectations, market incentive, and distortion of internal
reduced probability of opportunism, reduced information
probability of externalities caused through
dependence on monopoly suppliers and ability to
protect important proprietory or competitive
Diseconomies : balancing scale economies
inability of management to control large
knowledge, ease of conflict resolution
organization effectively, limits on span of control,
and increased difficulty in communication
Communicatin : improved coordination of
processes and greater goal congruence
Risk : asset concemtration , exit barries,
Cost : economies of scale through avoidance of perpetuation of obsolete processes , and
intermediaries – notably procurement, sales exaggerated synergies
promotion and distribution, process integration,
avoidence of switching transaction costs
Level 2 : Supply in a dyadic relationship

 Marshall (1923) and Coase (1973) identified the existence of alternative types
of relationships to vertical integration and competitive, arm’s-length market
transactions

 The intermediate types of relationships were later defined by Richardson

(1972) and Blois (1972), differentiated by the closeness of the bonds between
actors in terms of equity and commitment

 Collaborative relation ship with suppliers have been termed partnership

sourcing has been defined as ‘where customer and suppliers develop such a
close and long term relationship that the two work together as partners to
secure the best possible commercial advantage

 The principle is that teamwork is better than combat. If the end customer is
to best served, then the parties to adeal must work together-and both must
win.
Level 3 : Supply in an interorganizational chain

A supply chain is defined here as a connected string

of dyadic relationships that from a route for material-
product-service flow

Farmer and Ploos von Amstel (1991) refferd to a

supply pipeline.
Mismatch tool (Harland 1996a)

Supplier’s Customers
perception of perception of
requirements requirements
mismatch 1

SUPLIER mismatch 4 mismatch 3 CUSTOMER

Supplier’s customers
mistmatch 2
perception of perception of
performance performance
Level 4 : Supply in an interorganizational network

Supply Network Structure

Supply network structure differ according to their
shape, where a firm is physically positioned in the
network (which relates to type of player ) and the
size, power, and number of players contained within

Supply network shape

Breadth of the supply network
 Network
Breadth

Network length
Advantages of Broad Networks Advantages of narrow Networks

Adaptable to change Collaborative innovation

More switching opportunities Rigid and Strong

Wider access to knowledge Dense flows of information

Hedge against uncertainly Higher confidentiality

Cost Competitive Shared destiny