are altering the competitive landscape (Parkhe, Wasserman, & Ralston, 2006).
Gulati, 1995; Pisano, 1989), research into the organization of interfirm networks
has been scant.
Research scholars have conducted interfirm network
research for a few decades.
In other words, structuration theory is a fruitful framework for studies of an interfirm network
's evolution, since it captures the agency perspective of sustained dyadic exchange, recognizing that norms of conduct for dyadic exchange are dynamic and co-evolve with the network system over time.
The role of the interfirm network
as an information channel and facilitator of knowledge exchange between firms can be significant in the technological context (Powell, Koput, and Smith-Doerr, 1996).
The evolution of interfirm networks
: environmental effects on patterns of network change.
Social structure and competition in interfirm networks
: The paradox of embeddedness.
Third, broader interfirm networks
are the context in which we identify nexus suppliers.
See also Brian Uzzi, Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks
: The Paradox of Embeddedness, 42 ADMIN.
Uzzi, B., (1997): "Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks
: The Paradox of Embeddedness", Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35-67
In particular, companies rely more on interfirm networks
to access different resources and information in an uncertain environment (Sparrowe et al., 2001; Westphal et al., 2006).