ArticlePDF Available

Contacts and Contracts: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

August 2011
Organization Science 22(4):940-960

August 2011
22(4):940-960

DOI:10.2307/20868905

Source
DBLP

Authors:

Hans Berends

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Elco van Burg

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Erik M Van Raaij

Rotterdam School of Management

In this paper, we investigate how interorganizational networks and interpersonal networks interact over time. We present a retrospective longitudinal case study of the network system that developed a novel aircraft material and analyze change episodes from a structurationist perspective. We identify five types of episodes in which interpersonal and interorganizational networks interact (persistence, prospecting, consolidation, reconfiguration, and dissolution) and analyze conditions for these episodes and sequences among them. Our findings advance a cross-level perspective on embeddedness and show how individuals may draw on relational and structural embeddedness as distributed resources. The multiple levels of embeddedness impact network dynamics by introducing converging and diverging dialectics, thereby limiting path dependence and proactive network orchestration.

Data Sources

…

Prevailing Sequence Among Episodes

…

Conditions of Episodes

…

Figures - uploaded by Hans Berends

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Hans Berends

Content may be subject to copyright.

Organization Science

Vol. 22, No. 4, July–August 2011, pp. 940–960

issn 1047-7039 eissn 1526-5455 11 2204 0940 doi 10.1287/orsc.1100.0578

Contacts and Contracts: Cross-Level Network Dynamics

in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Hans Berends, Elco van Burg

School of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands

{j.j.berends@tue.nl, j.c.v.burg@tue.nl}

Erik M. van Raaij

Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands,

eraaij@rsm.nl

In this paper, we investigate how interorganizational networks and interpersonal networks interact over time. We present

a retrospective longitudinal case study of the network system that developed a novel aircraft material and analyze change

episodes from a structurationist perspective. We identify ﬁve types of episodes in which interpersonal and interorganiza-

tional networks interact (persistence, prospecting, consolidation, reconﬁguration, and dissolution) and analyze conditions

for these episodes and sequences among them. Our ﬁndings advance a cross-level perspective on embeddedness and show

how individuals may draw on relational and structural embeddedness as distributed resources. The multiple levels of embed-

dedness impact network dynamics by introducing converging and diverging dialectics, thereby limiting path dependence

and proactive network orchestration.

Key words: multilevel; network dynamics; product development; structuration

History: Published online in Articles in Advance October 22, 2010.

Introduction

By entering into interorganizational relationships, orga-

nizations can get access to complementary resources

(Aiken and Hage 1968, Van de Ven 1976), enabling,

for example, complex innovations (Dhanaraj and Parkhe

2006, Powell et al. 1996). The embeddedness in net-

works also constitutes a resource in itself (Gulati 2007):

a ﬁrm’s existing network position and its past alliances

inﬂuence subsequent relations, because previous expe-

riences create ties that provide opportunities for future

collaboration (Gulati and Gargiulo 1999, Powell et al.

2005, Uzzi 1997). These initial network conditions may

be enacted but also adjusted in processes of evaluation,

adaptation, and learning (Ariño and de la Torre 1998,

Doz 1996, Sydow 2004). The embeddedness of organi-

zations is thus a key factor shaping network dynamics.

The embeddedness of organizations depends on ties

at the level of individuals (Barden and Mitchell 2007,

Granovetter 1985). Ties at the level of organizations oper-

ate through individuals and their connections with coun-

terparts in partner organizations (Seabright et al. 1992),

thus creating multiple levels of embeddedness (cf. Dacin

et al. 1999, Hagedoorn 2006). However, few empir-

ical studies have investigated the interaction between

interorganizational networks and interpersonal networks

(Brass et al. 2004, Gulati 2007, Marchington and Vincent

2004). Those studies that looked at the interplay of

the two levels have been limited to cross-level effects

in existing interorganizational collaborations (Gulati and

Sytch 2008, Seabright et al. 1992, Zaheer et al. 1998)

and the role of personal relations in the formation of

dyadic interorganizational relations (Barden and Mitchell

2007, Gulati and Westphal 1999, Rosenkopf et al. 2001).

In this paper, we aim for more comprehensive under-

standing of the network dynamics resulting from these

multiple levels of embeddedness. Therefore, we investi-

gate how interorganizational and interpersonal networks

interact over time, viewing them as distinct phenomena,

whereby the latter is not necessarily nested in the former.

We address this question through a retrospective lon-

gitudinal case study of the network system that devel-

oped and eventually applied a new aircraft material

called Glare. Glare is a lightweight sheet material with

high fatigue strength and damage tolerance that found its

ﬁrst major commercial application on the Airbus A380

“superjumbo.” Development of this material spanned

more than 30 years, during which the network sys-

tem underwent many changes. We adopt a process

research approach to investigate the patterns underly-

ing these changes, using qualitative research procedures

(Langley 1999, Van de Ven and Poole 1995). Our

analysis is informed by structuration theory (Giddens

1984), because its interactive conceptualization of struc-

ture and agency reconciles prior research ﬁndings on

network dynamics and supports the linking of interper-

sonal and interorganizational networking (Sydow and

Windeler 2003).

940

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

The contributions of this paper are as follows. First,

to the best of our knowledge, we provide the ﬁrst pro-

cess study of networks that includes interorganizational

and interpersonal network levels. Second, whereas exist-

ing studies have analyzed a single interaction pattern,

we identify ﬁve different episode types in the recursive

structuration of interpersonal and interorganizational net-

works, and analyze conditions underlying these episodes

and sequences among them. Third, we advance theory

on multiple levels of embeddedness. Our ﬁndings show

how the interpersonal level makes embeddedness a dis-

tributed resource that may be incongruent across levels

and show how this holds for both relational and struc-

tural embeddedness. Fourth, we advance process theoriz-

ing on network dynamics by showing how the multiple

levels of embeddedness result in converging and diverg-

ing dialectics that complement evolutionary and teleo-

logical explanations of network development.

The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. We ﬁrst

review the literature on the dynamics of interorgani-

zational networks and the embeddedness of organiza-

tions in interorganizational and interpersonal networks.

After discussing our case study research methods, we

present ﬁve different episode types in network dynam-

ics and analyze the sequences of episodes found in the

case study. Finally, we discuss the implications of these

ﬁndings for understanding of network embeddedness,

describe the limitations of this research, and present our

conclusions.

Dynamics in Networks

Deﬁning Networks

A network is deﬁned broadly as a set of actors and the

set of ties between them representing their relationships

(Brass et al. 2004). In this paper, we distinguish between

two types of networks: interorganizational networks, in

which the actors are organizations, and interpersonal net-

works, in which the actors are individuals (cf. Oliver and

Liebeskind 1998). Interorganizational networks are cre-

ated by agreements between organizations specifying the

contributions, rights, and responsibilities of each organi-

zation in the pursuit of a particular objective (Jones et al.

1997, Koza and Lewin 1999). Interpersonal networks

consist of individuals tied together within or across orga-

nizations through work, advice, and friendship relation-

ships (Brass et al. 2004, Oliver and Liebeskind 1998).

The transactional content differs between these types of

relations: work relationships exchange goods and ser-

vices, advice relationships exchange information, and

friendship ties exchange affect and social identity (Tichy

et al. 1979, Krackhardt 1990). The boundaries of interor-

ganizational and interpersonal networks are deﬁned by

the relevance of the relation in facilitating access to

resources that may be helpful in the pursuit of a partic-

ular objective (Hung 2006, Laumann et al. 1978).

Interorganizational networks and interpersonal net-

works are separate yet intricately connected and inter-

dependent phenomena (Oliver and Liebeskind 1998).

An agreement between two or more organizations to

cooperate cannot be enacted without at least work

relationships between boundary-spanning individuals

(Van de Ven 1976). At the same time, however, many

friendship or advice relations may exist between indi-

viduals in different organizations without any agree-

ment at the level of the organization (Liebeskind et al.

1996). Thus, although the two networks exist at dif-

ferent levels, the interpersonal network is not necessar-

ily nested within the interorganizational network (Oliver

and Liebeskind 1998). Such partial inclusion is a com-

plicating factor to be addressed in cross-level research

(Rousseau 1985). We refer to the combination of the

interorganizational network and the interpersonal net-

work as the network system.

Dynamics in Interorganizational Networks

Embeddedness refers to the contextualization of activ-

ities in social structures and relations (Dacin et al.

1999, Granovetter 1985). Actions do not occur in a

social void but instead are affected by relations result-

ing from previous actions (Granovetter 1992). Previous

experiences provide information about partners, thereby

enhancing awareness and understanding of other actors’

competencies and resources, and inﬂuencing the social

attractiveness of other actors by building or destroy-

ing trust and commitment (Barden and Mitchell 2007,

Granovetter 1985, Gulati 1995b). Mutual understanding,

trust, and commitment inﬂuence the opportunities and

the willingness to engage in collaboration.

Network researchers have distinguished relational and

structural components of embeddedness (Granovetter

1992, Gulati 1995b). Relational embeddedness refers to

inﬂuences of dyadic relationships, whereas structural

embeddedness captures the inﬂuences of the overall pat-

tern of direct and indirect relations among a set of actors.

Structural embeddedness matters when social informa-

tion originates not only from direct interactions with

others but also from indirect connections to third parties

(Gulati and Gargiulo 1999).

Longitudinal studies of interorganizational networks

have ﬁrmly established that the embeddedness of orga-

nizations in network relationships affects the subsequent

formation of new relationships and future shaping of the

network (Uzzi 1997). Two organizations are more likely

to engage in an alliance when they have engaged in

past alliances together or share common third-party ties

(Chung et al. 2000, Gulati 1995b, Gulati and Gargiulo

1999). Consortium members are more likely to remain

in a research and development (R&D) consortium when

they have additional ties to other organizations in the

consortium (Olk and Young 1997). Furthermore, more

centrally positioned organizations will acquire more

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

new linkages (Tsai 2000; Powell et al. 1996, 2005),

and network structures tend to persist (Walker et al.

1997, Lorenzoni and Lipparini 1999). These tenden-

cies to replicate and strengthen existing relationships

and network structures highlight path-dependent conse-

quences of embeddedness, thereby exemplifying evolu-

tionary dynamics (Gulati 1998, Uzzi 1997).

Other process studies of network dynamics have

attended more explicitly to agency, allowing for tele-

ological process explanations (Van de Ven and Poole

1995). For example, endogenous network dynamics can-

not explain how to access networks without having a

prior position in them (Rosenkopf et al. 2001). Indeed,

process studies of organizational network dynam-

ics found intentional network design alongside path-

dependent network development mechanisms (Doz et al.

2000, Koza and Lewin 1999, Sydow 2004). Firms

and individuals may undertake strategic activities to

sidestep structures that inhibit network transformation

(Capaldo 2007, Rosenkopf et al. 2001), proactively man-

age relationships through subsequent stages (D’Aunno

and Zuckerman 1987, Jap and Anderson 2007), or steer

relationship development iteratively, through learning

and adaptation to changing conditions (Ariño and de la

Torre 1998, Doz 1996, Kumar and Nti 1998, Ring and

Van de Ven 1994).

Structuration theory (Giddens 1984) is able to rec-

oncile ﬁndings on embeddedness in social structures

with process studies of networks that emphasize agency

(Gulati 1995b, Li and Berta 2002, Sydow 2004, Sydow

and Windeler 1998). Structuration theory provides a

dynamic conception of structure and an embedded inter-

pretation of agency, considering them as an interactive

duality (Giddens 1984). One of the main concepts of

structuration theory, the “duality of structure,” asserts

that social structures are both the outcome and the

very medium of social interaction (Giddens 1976).

Agency is embedded in existing structures that both

enable and partially constrain human action. At the

same time, individuals have the power to “act oth-

erwise,” the possibility to say “no” (Giddens 1984).

The ongoing construction and reconstruction of structure

through embedded agency is called “structuration” and

is present in the dynamic interplay of existing relations

forming structural conditions for action and actions in

turn reshaping those structural conditions (Gulati 1995b,

Sydow and Windeler 1998). Whereas the structurationist

conception of embedded agency supports the notions of

relational and structural embeddedness stressed by evo-

lutionary studies, it also highlights agents’ abilities to

generate change as stressed by teleological studies.

In addition to evolutionary and teleological mecha-

nisms, structuration theory has been used to highlight

dialectical mechanisms in network dynamics (de Rond

2003). Actors engaged in the process of structura-

tion face the “dialectic of control” in that interacting

agents are always mutually dependent because relation-

ship partners are always characterized by some degree of

autonomy. Actors are inﬂuenced by more or less pow-

erful others, but they also have the opportunity to exert

control over those others (Giddens 1984, Sydow and

Windeler 1998). The dialectic of control has been stud-

ied as a phenomenon occurring between organizations

(Das and Teng 2000, de Rond 2003, McGuire 1988,

Zeitz 1980), emphasizing the engagement of multiple

partners in the construction of collaborative structures,

each responding to oppositions existing between them.

For example, de Rond and Bouchikhi (2004) analyzed

the tension between control and autonomy in the rela-

tion between alliance partners. Dialectics of control con-

strain the unilateral construction of social systems and

create unpredictability in social dynamics (Sydow and

Windeler 1998).

Embeddedness in Interorganizational and

Interpersonal Networks

We seek to extend understanding of interorganizational

network dynamics by incorporating the level of inter-

personal relations into the analysis. Firms are connected

by interpersonal relations at all levels where transactions

take place (Granovetter 1985), and these multiple con-

tacts provide potentially different experiences (Barden

and Mitchell 2007). Mechanisms of embeddedness may

operate both at the interpersonal and interorganizational

levels (Barden and Mitchell 2007, Gulati and Sytch

2008). For example, boundary-spanning individuals may

trust a partner organization as a whole, or they may

trust a speciﬁc counterpart in that organization (Zaheer

et al. 1998). Relationships among individuals thus play

a key role in the embeddedness of organizations. Yet

the implications of these multiple levels of embedded-

ness are only marginally explored, as prior research has

mostly focused on a single level (Brass et al. 2004, Klein

et al. 2000).

Although longitudinal studies of interorganizational

networks have convincingly documented the path-

dependent effect of organizations’ embeddedness in net-

works, they do not clarify the role of individuals and

interpersonal networks because they usually take the

organization or the dyadic relationship between orga-

nizations as the smallest unit of analysis (Klein et al.

2000). Research on interpersonal relations, by contrast,

has documented the liberal sharing of information in

informal networks among professionals from different

organizations, based on shared passions and mutual trust,

with limited attention for connections with the interorga-

nizational level (Bouty 2000, Brown and Duguid 2001,

Dahl and Pedersen 2004, Kreiner and Schultz 1993,

Schrader 1991, von Hippel 1987).

A few studies have disentangled interpersonal and

interorganizational relations and studied cross-level

effects (de Rond 2003, Marchington and Vincent 2004,

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Oliver and Liebeskind 1998). Within existing interor-

ganizational relations, interpersonal experiences have

been found to transform into interorganizational trust

(Zaheer et al. 1998, Gulati and Sytch 2008), whereas

a lack of “chemistry” may subvert interorganizational

bonds (de Rond 2003). Moreover, personal ties between

senior executives support the creation of formal rela-

tions between organizations (Browning et al. 1995,

Capaldo 2007, Ring and Van de Ven 1994, Westphal

et al. 2006). This has been conﬁrmed in studies focus-

ing on ties originating from previous exchanges among

leaders (Barden and Mitchell 2007), executives’ pre-

vious jobs (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven 1996, Kim

and Higgins 2007), and interlocking directorates (Gulati

and Westphal 1999). Research has focused mostly on

senior executives, but midlevel managers participating

in technical committees (Rosenkopf et al. 2001) and

other boundary spanners engaged in interorganizational

exchanges have also been found to aid the formation of

interorganizational ties (Barden and Mitchell 2007).

Prior research has thus revealed important inter-

personal dimensions of organizational embeddedness,

evoking calls for more research into the connections

between the interpersonal and the interorganizational

levels (Brass et al. 2004, Gulati 2007, Marchington and

Vincent 2004). We seek to extend the current literature

in two ways: ﬁrst, by studying cross-level interactions

over time, not only interpersonal relations as a precursor

for organizational ties, and second, by taking a network

perspective instead of only a dyadic perspective.

Because structuration theory offers an integrating

perspective on prior network dynamics research and

addresses the dynamics of individual agency and larger

social structures, we use it to guide the investigation of

the dynamic consequences of the two levels of embed-

dedness. We do not deduce speciﬁc hypotheses from

structuration theory, but we use it as a source of sen-

sitizing concepts, such as the duality of structure, that

offer guidance in empirical research for theory develop-

ment (Blumer 1954, Pozzebon and Pinsonneault 2005).

We include both interorganizational networks and inter-

personal networks in the analysis as structures that are

(re)produced through the practices of organization mem-

bers. At the same time, individual actions are enabled

and constrained by both levels of the network system

and by the organizational structure in which individuals

are embedded.

Research Methods

We conducted a retrospective longitudinal case study

using qualitative procedures to elaborate theory on

embeddedness and network dynamics (cf. Lee 1999,

Strauss 1987). Qualitative research procedures were

appropriate for the following reasons. First, this study

aimed to investigate how changes come about in a com-

plex, multilayered system through evolving interactions

of individuals and organizations. This required detailed

processual accounts, which can be found in qualitative

data sources such as interviews (Langley 1999). Fur-

thermore, an open and iterative approach to data collec-

tion and analysis was required because a core objective

was to explore and conceptualize these process dynam-

ics (Strauss 1987). Finally, qualitative research allowed

the use of multiple, complimentary data sources needed

to generate a comprehensive account (Yin 2003).

Our case study focused on the network system around

a technological innovation: Glare. Glare is a so-called

ﬁber-metal laminate (FML), a sheet material composed

of thin layers of aluminum and an adhesive contain-

ing glass ﬁbers. Its recent application on the fuse-

lage of the Airbus A380 marked a highly signiﬁcant

innovation, because the introduction of new classes

of materials in the primary structures of aircraft is

rare (only wood, metal, and, more recently, compos-

ites have been used). We considered this setting well

suited to conceptualize cross-level network dynamics

(cf. Siggelkow 2007). First, the dynamic system of col-

laborations extended over a period of about 30 years,

in which involvement increased from three core play-

ers in the 1970s to more than a dozen organizations in

2008, with organizations entering and retreating from the

network at various moments (shown later in Table 2).

This allowed a comprehensive investigation of path-

dependent network dynamics, including a variety of

change episodes (cf. Capaldo 2007). Second, techno-

logical innovations often depend strongly on interper-

sonal networking (Schrader 1991, Oliver and Liebeskind

1998). Indeed, interpersonal relations between members

of different organizations surfaced early in our study

as a salient characteristic, with some ties going back

more than 30 years. The moderate size of the Glare

network system allowed us to identify key individuals

from all organizations and investigate their relationships.

Finally, extensive documentation was available for this

case, including historical accounts, patents, publications,

and public sources, enabling us to triangulate interview-

based data.

Procedures to Mitigate Retrospective Bias

We systematically followed key procedures to safeguard

from potential retrospective biases (Golden 1992, Huber

and Power 1985, Miller et al. 1997, Schwenk 1985):

(1) We collected data about each episode from at least

three respondents representing at least two organiza-

tions, tapping into potential differences in perspectives

and emotional involvement, so that biases or lapses were

likely to offset those of other informants. (2) We trian-

gulated interview data with other types of data, such as

earlier documentation of the case history, coauthorship

data, and patents (Jick 1979). (3) Interviews were struc-

tured around concrete events, factual data, and actual

behavior, which aids the accurate reporting of the past

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

(Golden 1992, Miller et al. 1997). Furthermore, inter-

views were conducted by at least two interviewers, to

pick up points missed by one interviewer, and were

spread over a period of more than two years, reducing

the threat of any single recent event impacting views

of the past. (4) The case description was checked with

15 respondents, ensuring that potential differences in

interpretation were brought to our attention. Below, we

describe our procedures in more detail.

Data Collection

Data collection started with interviews with central net-

work players (cf. Bell et al. 2006). Our initial sources

to identify key informants were a ﬁrst contact at

Stork Fokker (which produces Glare for the Airbus

A380) along with the documentation of the Glare his-

tory in Vlot (2001). We subsequently applied snowball

sampling by asking interviewees for other respondents;

following up on stories, organizations, and individuals

mentioned in the interviews; and checking with inter-

viewees whether we had identiﬁed the most relevant

informants. Next, we also identiﬁed organizations and

interviewees at the periphery of the network, as well as

informants who were no longer part of it because of

organizational withdrawal, individual retirement, career

changes, or conﬂicts. Thus, we took care to follow up

on less successful episodes and broken ties to limit

the threat of a bias toward past successes and self-

aggrandizement. We interviewed 30 individuals who

played a role in the development of Glare. Many of

them had served in different organizations over time,

so we had, on average, more than three interviewees

per organization. The semistructured interviews lasted

90 minutes on average. All interviews, except one, were

conducted by at least two members of the research team,

recorded, and fully transcribed.

Interviews were prepared in detail on the basis of

existing documentation and our understanding of the

case history. Interviewees were invited to recount their

own professional history and involvement with FML.

Then we zoomed in on the speciﬁc episodes and rela-

tionships the interviewee was familiar with. Finally,

based on accounts of other interviewees and our evolv-

ing understanding of events, we asked for additional

information concerning speciﬁc events and relationships.

At later moments, 10 follow-up interviews and 7 e-mail

conversations were conducted to clarify remaining points

of uncertainty.

In addition to interviews, other important sources of

data were gathered. We used a number of technical

books on Glare and reconstructions of the Glare develop-

ment, especially Vlot (2001), Vlot and Gunnink (2001),

Vermeeren (2002), and Vogelesang (2003). We also col-

lected archival documentation, such as patents, technical

publications, graduation theses and dissertations, confer-

ence proceedings and participant lists, marketing mate-

rial on Glare and its predecessor Arall, research program

reports and documents, newspaper articles, and pub-

lic interviews. Patents and scientiﬁc publications proved

to be a crucial source of additional information on

interpersonal relations: coauthorship and coinventorship

have frequently been used as indicators of interpersonal

collaboration (e.g., Liebeskind et al. 1996, Meyer and

Bhattacharya 2004), and acknowledgements in publica-

tions contain complementary information (Laudel 2002).

The combination of these archival data and interview

data provides reliable insight into the existence and

characteristics of interpersonal collaborations (Katz and

Martin 1997, Laudel 2002). Table 1 summarizes our data

sources for different time periods.

Data Analysis

As a ﬁrst step in our analysis, we created a comprehen-

sive case narrative, providing a chronological overview

of events (Langley 1999). We used QSR NVivo 2.0

to build a case study database and maintain the chain

of evidence (Yin 2003), coding interviews for descrip-

tions of actors and periods. We operationalized our def-

inition of the interorganizational network as all legal

entities (ﬁrms, joint ventures, universities, government

institutions) tied to each other through an agreement to

codevelop, ﬁnance, test, produce, market, or apply FMLs

at that point in time. To support the analysis we made

diagrams of the changing interorganizational network.

We operationalized the interpersonal network deﬁ-

nition as all connections among individuals who were

involved in the development of FML with the goal

of applying it in the aerospace industry. This interper-

sonal network included work-related ties (e.g., joint team

membership), advice and support relationships (e.g.,

sharing of information), and friendship ties (e.g., affect

and liking). We created diagrams of the interpersonal

network at different points in time by analyzing inter-

views, published case histories, scientiﬁc publications

and patents, and acknowledgements in papers or disser-

tations, displaying relationships among about 150 peo-

ple. Formal evidence for work-related ties was collected

from coauthorship of publications and patents. Evidence

for an advice and support relationship is, for example,

the following acknowledgement in a dissertation: “I am

much indebted to Ir. J. W. Gunnink and his colleagues

for their research support and provision of materials”

(Mueller 1995, p. iii). Furthermore, a friendship tie is,

for instance, indicated by the following quote: “I remem-

ber that we had an inauguration of the successor of Boud

Vogelesang 000and he told the auditorium that I was

sleeping in the garden house of Jan Willem [Gunnink],

which was true 000 [laughter].”

The case description built from these analyses was

sent to 15 interviewees. Their comments resulted in

several minor modiﬁcations of the case description.

We also obtained permission from interviewees to pub-

lish the quotes used in this paper. After creating the

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Table 1 Data Sources

History Relevant academic

Periods Interviewees descriptions Dissertations publications Patents Examples of other documents

Before 1986 15 5 0 6 1 Not available

1986–1990 22 5 2 11 5 TU Delft Arall research project review leaﬂet;

Akzo leaﬂet of Arall; Alcoa technical fact

sheet of Arall; Arall conference participant

list

1991–1995 26 5 6 23 3 Glare Evaluation Program (SLC) report and

contract; SLC FML leaﬂets; presentation of

FML study to the Boeing company;

statement of the U.S. Department of

Transportation

1996–2000 24 6 6 21 3 Alcoa announcement of cooperation with

Aviation Equipment; GTP reports and

notes

2001–2008 22 4 7 28 30 Annual report of NLR; announcements of

Airbus; websites of Airbus, FMLC, TU

Delft, etc.; NIVR presentation on Glare

narrative and mapping the networks, our second step

in the analysis was to identify distinct episodes, as

a temporal bracketing analysis strategy, particularly

suited to a structurationist approach (Langley 1999,

Pozzebon and Pinsonneault 2005). Because our study

aims to contribute to theory on interorganizational net-

work dynamics, we deﬁne episodes here as changes

in the structure of the interorganizational network: the

withdrawal of an organization, the (re)involvement of an

organization, or a signiﬁcant change in the formal rela-

tionship between two or more organizations. Episodes

consist of a series of related events through which struc-

tural change unfolds. The 34 episodes so identiﬁed were

the basic unit of analysis in the remainder of the study

(cf. Ariño and de la Torre 1998, Halinen et al. 1999).

For our third analytical step, we analyzed types among

the episodes, comparing them to identify similarities

and differences (Strauss 1987). Using structuration as a

sensitizing concept, we described for each episode the

actions involved, the conditions that enabled and con-

strained those actions, and the network consequences of

the episode. Iterative comparison revealed ﬁve episode

types (persistence, prospecting, consolidation, dissolu-

tion, and reconﬁguration), representing different ways

in which interpersonal and interorganizational networks

interacted. These episode types were grounded in data

and emerged from our analysis, rather than being prede-

termined or purely theoretically motivated. During this

step, we had to collect additional data for the details of

certain episodes and to return to the previous analytical

step several times to redeﬁne or split episodes through

constant comparison of evidence for the episodes.

Finally, we analyzed chains of episodes for typical

sequences over time. Therefore, we coded each episode

in terms of the ﬁve types and displayed the connec-

tions between the episodes in the history of the network.

Episode B is considered to be a successor of Episode A

if the type (persistence, prospecting, consolidation, dis-

solution, or reconﬁguration) of Episode A is a condition

for the type of Episode B, and Episode B is directly

related to Episode A. Differences of opinion were dis-

cussed within the research team until consensus was

reached. These discussions at various stages of the anal-

ysis helped to inhibit tendencies to overidentify with

particular interpretations (Pettigrew 1990). We now turn

to the ﬁndings and start with an introduction to the case

history.

Findings

Case Description

In 1955, it was established that two crashes of

de Havilland Comet jet airliners the year before were

attributable to metal fatigue in the aluminum structure,

prompting a worldwide search for alternative materials

with less fatigue vulnerability and better impact proper-

ties. Among those searching for such a material was a

network of researchers in The Netherlands. The basis of

this network was a long-standing public–private research

cooperation between the aircraft manufacturer Fokker,

the Dutch aerospace laboratory Nationaal Lucht- en

Ruimtevaartlaboratorium (NLR), and the Delft Uni-

versity of Technology (TU Delft). The ties between

these organizations were strengthened through employ-

ees combining jobs at NLR and TU Delft, or at Fokker

and TU Delft. In 1971, researchers at Fokker and TU

Delft started studying reinforcements of bonded alu-

minum structures with ﬁbers, an idea they got from the

U.S. aerospace agency National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). However, promising results did

not follow quickly, and without the prospect of a com-

mercial application on a new aircraft, Fokker’s interest

in the material waned.

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

In 1978, the research team at TU Delft, led by Boud

Vogelesang, had assumed a central role in the network,

and their research started to show promising results.

This episode is the starting point of our case analy-

sis. In the early 1980s, more partners became involved

through personal contacts of TU Delft’s researchers.

The North American aluminum producer Alcoa and the

Dutch chemical company Akzo each contributed spe-

cialist materials expertise on aluminum and on aramid

and glass ﬁbers; 3M contributed adhesives expertise. The

industrial partners also helped ﬁnance the research and

provided materials and lab space, eventually resulting

in a new class of aircraft materials based on multiple

layers of aluminum and ﬁber-enhanced adhesives, the

so-called FMLs. This type of material shows remark-

ably smaller and slower crack growth compared with

aluminum, thereby enhancing fatigue resistance. Further-

more, the material has higher impact resistance, and if

the material is damaged, its residual strength is also

higher. The ﬁrst commercial material was Arall (based

on aramid ﬁbers), succeeded by Glare (based on glass

ﬁbers).

In 1991, Akzo and Alcoa formed a joint venture,

Structural Laminates Company (SLC), to commercialize

Arall and Glare and coordinate further research efforts.

Several players in the aircraft industry were persuaded

to experiment with FML, including Messerschmitt-

Bölkow-Blohm (MBB), Aérospatiale, Boeing, and the

U.S. Air Force. Commercialization, however, proved

very difﬁcult. Because of the high production costs of

FML—the process is very labor-intensive—full beneﬁts

can only be obtained if the aircraft structure is specif-

ically designed for the use of FML. However, most

“new” aircraft are in fact updates of earlier versions,

thus severely limiting opportunities for the application of

FML. Furthermore, the introduction of any new material

for the primary structure of an aircraft requires a long

and costly process of testing and certiﬁcation to ensure

safety and meet international regulations.

Because commercial success remained elusive, Alcoa

withdrew from the network in 1995, which also meant

the end of the joint venture SLC. In the meantime, parts

of the now-bankrupt Fokker were taken over by Stork,

and in 1998, Stork Fokker became heavily involved

as it acquired from Akzo Nobel the license to pro-

duce Glare. Researchers from TU Delft convinced Stork

Fokker and other network partners to establish the Fiber

Metal Laminates Centre of Competence (FMLC) in

2001 to coordinate FML research. Shortly thereafter,

a major window of opportunity for the application of

the material arose with the announcement of the Airbus

A380 “superjumbo,” an aircraft that would beneﬁt from

lightweight materials because of its large fuselage size.

Because Airbus had emerged from a merger of, amongst

others, the German MBB and the French Aérospa-

tiale, many researchers with previous FML experience

were involved in the development of this new aircraft,

which facilitated the choice for Glare. The ﬁrst A380

ﬂight took place in 2005, some 30 years after initial

FML research. The application of Glare on the A380

and Boeing’s subsequent decision to develop a fully

composite airplane induced Alcoa to reconsider FML.

Thus, in 2004, Alcoa reinvigorated FML research activ-

ities, in cooperation with former FMLC employees who

had founded the company GTM Advanced Structures

(GTM), resulting in the material CentrAl in 2007 (FML

sandwiched between layers of aluminum). Table 2 pro-

vides an overview of the involved organizations.

Our analysis of the episodes discerned in this

case history yielded ﬁve different types of interac-

tion between the interorganizational (“contracts”) and

the interpersonal (“contacts”) networks: (1) persistence

(contacts outlast contracts), (2) prospecting (contacts

build contracts), (3) consolidation (contracts build con-

tacts), (4) dissolution (contacts end with contracts), and

(5) reconﬁguration (contacts change contracts). Figure 1

provides an overview of change episodes and connec-

tions among them.

Systematic comparison of the episodes revealed three

groups of conditions that help explain the occurrence

of a particular type of episode (see Table 3). First,

endogenous characteristics of the interorganizational and

interpersonal networks, including indirect ties on both

levels, affected the occurrence of a particular type of

episode. Second, episodes were triggered by perceived

opportunities for collaboration, as determined by orga-

nizational strategies and personal beliefs. Third, char-

acteristics of individuals’ positions—in particular, their

autonomy, hierarchical position, and expert power—

inﬂuenced their ability to shape the network system.

For each of the ﬁve episode types, we describe one

episode in-depth and subsequently discuss the major

conditions for this type of interaction. The presentation

follows the chronological order of the key examples to

facilitate understanding of the whole case study.

Persistence 4Contacts Outlast Contracts5

In persistence episodes, individuals resist network

changes at the interorganizational level, reproducing and

retaining existing interpersonal relations against the tide

of stated organizational intent. The role of individuals in

enacting structure is especially evident, as can be seen

in the following example of a persistence episode.

1978: Fokker and TU Delft Continue Cooperation

Despite Fokker’s Reduced Interest. After World War II,

Fokker, TU Delft, and NLR formed a close triangle

in aircraft development, research, and education, and

the Dutch government funded Fokker research projects

through its agency for aerospace programs (Nederlands

Instituut voor Vliegtuigontwikkeling en Ruimtevaart, or

(NIVR)). In 1971, Fokker began studying reinforcements

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Table 2 Involved Organizations

Role in the development of FML and

Organization Period of involvement essential historical information

TU Delft 1978– Fundamental materials research, research and

development, testing

Fokker (later Stork Fokker) 1978– Development and testing, preparing application on F50,

production of Glare. Fokker went bankrupt in 1996,

and its main parts were sold to Stork

NLR 1978– Testing and certiﬁcation

3M 1981–1995 Supplying adhesive and prepregs, research, and

funding

Alcoa 1981–1995; 2004– Funding, supplying aluminum, production of Arall,

marketing, and sales

Akzo (later Akzo Nobel) 1981–1999 Funding, supplying ﬁbers, and setting up Glare R&D

department

NIVR 1983– Government agency funding Dutch R&D on FML

de Havilland (later Boeing, later Bombardier) 1986–1992; 1996–2005 Preparing application on Dash-8; see Bombardier; de

Havilland was subsequently owned by Boeing, by the

Canadian government, and ﬁnally by Bombardier

DFVLR 1987 Research and testing

MBB (later Airbus) 1988– Testing, development, and preparing applications on

several Airbus aircraft; see Airbus

McDonnell Douglas 1988–1995 Testing and application on C130 (see U.S. Air Force)

Boeing 1991–1995 Preparing application of Glare on 777

SLC (joint venture Akzo and Alcoa; later SLI) 1991–1997 Developing, testing, applying, and marketing Glare and

Arall

Aérospatiale (later Airbus) 1994– Glare studies for diverse applications, later especially

for the A380; see Airbus

Garuda Airlines 1994–1997 Glare studies, applications on DC-10

U.S. Air Force 1995– Retroﬁt Glare applications on C130 and studying

applications on other aircraft

Aviation Equipment 1995– Production of Glare for several secondary applications

Bombardier 1996–2005 Application on Learjet 45; preparing application on the

C-series aircraft

Luftwaffe 1999 Test application of Glare on A310 aircraft

Airbus 2001– Since 2001, Airbus has been a fully integrated

company, a merger of, among others, Aérospatiale

and MBB; producing Glare, applying Glare on the

A380, studying applications for the A350

FMLC 2001– Coordinating testing and acquiring funding

GTM 2004– Development and testing

Global Technics 2005– Development and engineering (design)

of bonded aluminum structures with ﬁbers, in coopera-

tion with researchers from TU Delft. Initially, however,

this research only showed promising results as a local

cure for fatigue problems. Furthermore, implementing

the concept on a Fokker aircraft could not be realized

in the foreseeable future, because Fokker was not devel-

oping a new aircraft. Simply replacing the traditional

adhesive layers in the structure of an already-certiﬁed

aircraft with ﬁber-enhanced adhesive layers would be

far too expensive because of certiﬁcation requirements.

As a result, around 1978, FML found itself pitted

against other developments deemed more necessary for

the future of Fokker. The responsible engineer for mate-

rial development at Fokker said to Boud Vogelesang, a

researcher from TU Delft, “I am the bonding specialist.

This development is not worth your money. You’d bet-

ter stop your research on FML.” But Vogelesang replied,

“As a researcher, I am free to study what I want. So, I

will continue independently and I believe that we will

be able to improve this material.”

Although Fokker’s higher management appeared to

be less interested in FML, a number of material and

structures developers at Fokker remained convinced of a

future for the new material. They maintained their good

relationships with TU Delft researchers and continued

to cooperate, for example, by performing tests for them.

According to Fedde Holwerda, former chief engineer

at Fokker, “There were a lot of skeptics 0 0 0 0 Then you

need these stayers. At a lower level, some people could

continue 0 0 0 0 People that just persisted and did not fol-

low what’s popular, but just continued with the difﬁcult

things.”

These cooperative research efforts ﬁnally resulted in

a breakthrough in FML research and in a new material

called “Arall” in 1981.

Persistence episodes show that when organizations

change or terminate their interorganizational collabo-

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Figure 1 Network Change Episodes

1995 Alcoa licenses Aviation

equipment to produce Glare

1988 MBB cooperates with TU

Delft on barrel test

DissolutionProspectingPersistence ReconfigurationConsolidation

1981 TU Delft involves Akzo

1999 Stork Fokker involves

Luftwaffe for A310 Glare

application

1997 SLI and TU Delft attract

large-scale funding from NIVR for

Glare development

1995 SLC and TU Delft

cooperate with U.S. Air Force on

application at C130

1994 SLC and Fokker cooperate

with Aérospatiale on Glare

studies

1981 TU Delft involves 3M

1981 TU Delft involves Alcoa

2005 GlobalTechnics founded by

Stork Fokker and Airbus

employees

2001 Stork Fokker, TU Delft and

NLR found FMLC

1999 Akzo sells Glare division to

Stork, so individual researchers

continue Glare research

1978 Fokker and TU Delft continue

cooperation despite Fokker's reduced

interest

2004 Alcoa establishes new

research program with GTM and

other partners

1995 3M stops cooperation with

SLC

1987 Emerging cooperation

between DFVLR and TU Delft

prohibited by contract with Akzo

1988 Alcoa involves McDonnell

Douglas for C17 application

1986 de Havilland cooperates

with TU Delft and Alcoa

1996 Bombardier cooperates

with SLI on application at

Learjet 45

1995 McDonnell Douglas stops

cooperation with SLC

1995 Boeing stops cooperation

with SLC

2005 Cooperation Bombardier

and Stork Fokker stops

1997 Garuda Airlines stops

cooperation with TU Delft on

Glare

1983 Alcoa gets license from

Akzo and invests in Arall

1992 de Havilland researchers

continue cooperation despite

reduced management support

1997 Founding of research

consortium: the Glare

Technology Program

1994 TU Delft and SLC involve

Garuda Airlines for Glare study

2002 Airbus and Stork Fokker

cooperate on Glare application at

A380 2004 GTM Advanced Structures

founded by FMLC employees

1991 SLC cooperation

1983 NIVR funds TU Delft’s

cooperation with Fokker on Arall

applicationat F27 wing

1991 Alcoa and SLC cooperate

with Boeing on Glare cargo floor

of 777

1991 TU Delft and Akzo convince

Alcoa about Glare cooperation in

SLC

1995 Alcoa withdraws support

from SLC cooperation, but SLC

researchers continue in SLI

rations, individuals may choose to go along with the

new network structure or not. At the interorganiza-

tional level, the decision of Fokker’s management to

withdraw from the direct cooperation with TU Delft

was motivated by the strategic conclusion that the

research did not create near-term business opportunities

(see Table 3). Besides that, other investments enjoyed

greater priority, so Fokker’s formal withdrawal con-

strained interorganizational-level cooperation.

At the interpersonal level, work-related ties were cut,

but quite often, new advice and friendship ties had

been established as a result of the organizational col-

laboration. Various interviewees have described how a

shared passion for advanced materials established bonds

between people that proved to be very difﬁcult to break.

For example, when in 1992, in another critical episode,

de Havilland decided to divest its FML research pro-

gram, Leo Kok continued to exchange information with

researchers from SLC with an eye on opportunities for

a new research program:

It became a case of keeping aware of what the compe-

tition was doing at the time. But then you didn’t nec-

essarily let your management know that you knew what

your friends at competitors were doing 0 0 0 0 We’d go to

the same conferences and have lunch together and talk

ideas and things like that. So there were the typical Aero-

mat conferences. They were the big ones where every-

body escaped to California, I guess for structures and

new materials and then you know the Alcoa guys were

always there. And they were still interested even though

they couldn’t always fully participate in your programs.

That network was more or less intact.

Bill Evancho, former president of SLC, conﬁrmed,

And I still talk to him [Leo Kok] from time to time. The

people who have been involved stayed involved. Even

though their corporate alliances have changed, their jobs

have changed; they still stay in touch and still talk about

the technology of ﬁber metal laminates.

Indirect interpersonal ties stimulated persistence

because they increased the informational beneﬁts of

direct contacts. For Vogelesang, for example, collabo-

ration with the people at the Fokker research lab also

ensured indirect ties to people elsewhere in the Fokker

organization. Some years later, these contacts facilitated

lobbying chief engineer Holwerda to apply Arall on the

new Fokker 50 aircraft. Furthermore, persistence of col-

laboration in this episode, as well as in other persistence

episodes, was enabled by mutual understanding: Fokker

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Table 3 Conditions of Episodes

Persistence Prospecting Consolidation Dissolution Reconﬁguration

Changes in network ties:

Interorganizational ties

Interpersonal ties

Broken Created Intensiﬁed Broken Changed

Work ties broken; advice

and friendship ties

sustained

Advice and friendship ties

leveraged

Work, advice, and friend-

ship ties created or

strengthened

Work and advice ties broken Work, advice, and friendship

ties leveraged

Conditions for these changes:

Indirect interorganizational

ties

Indirect ties enabling Indirect ties enabling Indirect ties constraining Indirect ties constraining

Indirect interpersonal ties Indirect advice and friend-

ship ties enabling

Indirect advice and

friendship ties enabling

Indirect advice and

friendship ties enabling

Strategy and opportunity ﬁt

between organizations

Disappearing Existing or emerging High Disappearing Tensions

Shared personal beliefs in

opportunities

High High Strengthening Low or decreasing High

Characteristics of individuals’

positions

Professional autonomy Professional autonomy;

hierarchical or expert

power

Hierarchical or expert

power

Limited autonomy Professional autonomy;

expert power

Subsequent episodes Prospecting (6) Dissolution (4) Prospecting (7) Dissolution (1) Consolidation (3)

(frequency) Reconﬁguration (2) Consolidation (4) Reconﬁguration (4) Prospecting (1)

Dissolution (1) Prospecting (2) Dissolution (3)

Consolidation (1) Persistence (1) Consolidation (3)

Persistence (2)

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

and TU Delft engineers had been working together for a

long time on bonding metal. Engineers from both sides

shared the belief that the material constituted a revolu-

tion toward the construction of lighter and more reliable

aircraft:

Once you are infected, you stay infected. When you

see that the material has these unique capabilities,

then you want to continue with it. You want to be

involved000because it creates opportunities you never

thought about. (Jan Willem Gunnink, former associate

professor, TU Delft)

Moreover, Vogelesang’s position as an academic pro-

vided him with the much-needed professional autonomy

(cf. Oliver and Liebeskind 1998). On the Fokker side,

persistence was enabled by the professional autonomy

of the developers, supported by the fact that their collab-

orative work consumed only limited resources and was

not highly visible.

Prospecting 4Contacts Build Contracts5

Prospecting episodes are characterized by actors explor-

ing new directions through interpersonal contacts, then

formalizing these collaborations at the interorganiza-

tional level. In other words, informal contacts lead to

formal contracts (cf. Rosenkopf et al. 2001). Prospecting

opens up new opportunities for network development.

We describe one episode that illustrates prospecting.

1981: Involvement of Alcoa. After Fokker’s interest

declined, TU Delft became central in FML development.

Industrial partners were needed to supply both materi-

als and expertise in ﬁbers, thin aluminum sheets, and

adhesives, as well as to gain access to the commer-

cial aircraft market. Searching for an aluminum sup-

plier, TU Delft researchers ﬁrst explored contacts at the

French aluminum producer Pechiney but were not suc-

cessful. Then, at the Society for the Advancement of

Material and Process Engineering conference in Cannes,

in January 1981, they met some of their contacts at

the American aluminum producer Alcoa. Some initial

interest in FML development was generated, and sub-

sequently, letters and samples were sent to Alcoa, but

Alcoa’s researchers did not pay much attention until one

of them developed a personal interest in the material.

As Bob Bucci, aircraft materials researcher at Alcoa,

told us,

I recall that when I was a student, my Ph.D. advisor,

Paul Paris, just kept feeding me these wonderful fatigue

and fracture research reports he got from NLR and TU

Delft, authored by Jaap Schijve [researcher at NLR and

aircraft materials professor at TU Delft]. I felt that Jaap

was somebody I had to meet. After joining Alcoa I ﬁnally

had the pleasure to meet Jaap. It was 1981, at a fatigue

conference in Stockholm, and Jaap invited me to visit

TU Delft to see some of the interesting work he and

his colleagues were doing. I said, “I’d like to do that.”

When I arrived, one of the things they wanted to show

me was some of the early work they had been doing

on the development of Arall and Fiber Metal Laminates.

They were looking for an aluminum supplier that could

supply the thin sheets. After spending a day at Delft

with Jaap Schijve, Boud Vogelesang, and Jan Willem

Gunnink, I came away convinced and very excited that

this was a technology that Alcoa had to be getting into.

We were just seeing the ﬁrst signs of having to compete

with composite materials. So, I came back and wrote a

rather strong letter to my management and the marketing

people.

The Alcoa research community voiced their concern

that composites could one day replace aluminum for

aircraft, but Bucci was convinced that with Arall, they

could both supply their aluminum and play a role in the

market for composite materials. Now, his management

had to be won over:

It took about two or three years, the discussion within

Alcoa about whether we should invest some money to do

some research. We formed a little study group, that even-

tually evolved into a project team. As more and more

data was beginning to emerge, we saw the amazing char-

acteristics of these materials. Eventually, we came to a

point where our project team started making samples of

materials and putting them out to customers.

Alcoa was willing to supply the thin aluminum sheets

needed for TU Delft’s experimental Arall, although man-

ufacturing these thin sheets was difﬁcult and labor-

intensive. Somewhat later, Alcoa obtained a license for

the commercial production of Arall from Akzo, who

owned the patent; for ﬁve years, Alcoa had the exclusive

rights to produce the material. Alcoa saw market poten-

tial, launching the ﬁrst commercial version of Arall in

1983 and starting production of Arall samples in 1984.

We observe that the formalized cooperation between

Alcoa and TU Delft was triggered by shared beliefs in

the possibilities of FML arising from informal infor-

mation sharing in advice relationships. For Bucci, the

relationship with TU Delft was enabled by his indirect

relation with Jaap Schijve, brokered by his Ph.D. super-

visor Paul Paris:

These two individuals were basically giants in the ﬁeld.

So, they had a technical-professional kind of relation-

ship through conferences—sharing interest in a similar

discipline.

One key condition for organizations to follow through

on the prospecting at the interpersonal level was demon-

stration of ﬁt between identiﬁed opportunities and orga-

nizational strategy. But convincing organizations to turn

personal ideas into a corporate research and development

agenda required a lot of persuasive power and stamina.

It took Bucci and his colleagues two years to get Alcoa

management to embrace FML as a new development that

could strategically defend Alcoa market share against

the threat of composite materials.

The progress of prospecting is inﬂuenced by the posi-

tion of individuals in their organizations. Bucci’s posi-

tion gave him professional autonomy to explore new

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

directions and bring them to the attention of develop-

ment managers (cf. Burgelman and Grove 1996). Simi-

larly, engineers from MBB were free to experiment with

new materials, and contacts with TU Delft researchers

stimulated them to start testing Glare in 1988. Only

years later, however, when they had ascended the hier-

archical ladder within Airbus, could researchers inﬂu-

ence the eventual choice of Glare for the A380. As

such, personal relationships between senior managers

and executives are more easily turned into formal ties

(cf. Westphal et al. 2006). For example, the establish-

ment of the Glare Technology Program was largely

enabled by the expert status of Daan Krook, a for-

mer director at Airbus and Fokker, who had good rela-

tionships with other directors, chief executive ofﬁcers

(CEOs), and government ofﬁcials.

Several of the prospecting episodes were positively

inﬂuenced by the partner’s indirect interpersonal and

interorganizational relationships with other network part-

ners. For Alcoa, the commitment of Akzo to the devel-

opments at TU Delft was a condition. Akzo’s patent

position, backed with experience in ﬁber production,

supported further exploration of the business opportu-

nity. Similarly, relations of Alcoa people with others

in the aircraft industry were an additional reason for

Vogelesang and others at Delft to pursue a tie with

Alcoa. As Bucci stated,

Another reason that Delft was interested in us at that time

was our position in the aerospace market. So, through

our exposure and contacts we could make these ideas

available to our customers.

Consolidation 4Contracts Build Contacts5

The deﬁning characteristic of consolidation episodes is

that formal agreements at the level of the interorganiza-

tional network result in new interpersonal ties. To a cer-

tain extent, this episode type is a mirror of prospecting

episodes; whereas the interpersonal network is leading

in prospecting, consolidation is triggered by action in the

interorganizational network. In the following episode we

see how new interpersonal ties are created as a result of

an organizational decision to cooperate.

1991: SLC Cooperation. When Alcoa realized its ﬁrst

commercial Arall application in 1988, the relationship

between Alcoa and Akzo began to deteriorate. The

exclusive production rights for Arall, which Akzo had

licensed to Alcoa, were expiring. Furthermore, Akzo

was starting its own Glare business, having acquired a

new patent from TU Delft. Alcoa’s preference to focus

on the older Arall created considerable tension between

the partners. In the end, Alcoa decided to go along with

Akzo and to accept Glare as a second FML product. This

resulted in a joint venture, SLC, in 1991, which owned

the patents for both Arall and Glare. Because of the

earlier disagreements between Akzo and Alcoa, the con-

tacts between Alcoa and the Dutch partners Akzo and

TU Delft had soured, but with the formation of SLC, the

group was brought back together, and a new shared spirit

could emerge. As Bill Evancho, former Alcoa employee

and president of SLC, recalled,

Structural Laminates Company consisted of the merger

of the Alcoa group that was focusing on Arall and a

group that Akzo had formed to promote Glare. Any-

way, we had several meetings to form the group 0 0 0 0

The company itself consisted of a group of people from

The Netherlands, Akzo’s people, and a group of Alcoa’s

people here in the U.S. That group, I believe, functioned

together as a single body extremely well. It was a high-

powered group. Most of the people got along with every-

body else. The few who did not ended up to be trans-

ferred out, because we couldn’t jeopardize the success of

our project.

SLC employed some of those who had been involved

in FML development from the very beginning, and they

deﬁned the course of the research in close cooperation

with the reconnected Alcoa people. From Alcoa’s side,

the focus was on commercialization and marketing. Sub-

sequently, SLC also allocated research, development, and

production tasks to other network partners, like TU Delft,

NLR, and Fokker (which had become more involved

again in 1983). Moreover, SLC was able to build new

relationships, for instance, with Aérospatiale, Boeing,

and Bombardier, and to strengthen existing relationships

through increased collaboration. Evancho stated,

These people formed close relationships with technolo-

gists at the customer locations. They became a very close

community.

SLC gave the network a nucleus that performed a

pivotal role in coordinating both fundamental materials

research and the commercialization of FML.

At the interorganizational network level, one important

condition for consolidation was the ﬁt between the con-

tract and a given ﬁrm’s strategic intent to cooperate with

the other parties to exploit complementary resources,

increase cooperation, or create protection against oppor-

tunism (see Table 3). After Akzo and Alcoa agreed

on their joint venture in 1991, cooperation intensiﬁed

through more frequent interactions and new relation-

ships among persons from both sides, as evidenced

by a range of coauthored papers (e.g., Gregory and

Roebroeks 1991, Wu et al. 1994). Other episodes of this

type show the same pattern: multiple direct and indi-

rect relationships at the interorganizational network level

are aligned by a new agreement, which in turn supports

increasing growth and density in the interpersonal net-

work. New relationships grow from work to advice rela-

tions, and they sometimes evolve into friendships. For

example, Rob Fredell, who suspended his work as an

engineer for the U.S. Air Force to complete a Ph.D. at

TU Delft, acknowledged,

My work was aided in large part by the ﬁnancial

and technical support of Structural Laminates Com-

pany. I also consider every member of the SLC team a

good friend. Jan Willem Gunnink, Buwe van Wimersma,

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Tom Matway, Rob van Oost, Geert Roebroeks, Arthur

Mattousch, Rob Leonard, and Grace Boschman are the

people who kept me in laminates and added a real-world

inﬂuence so important to good research.

(Fredell 1994, p. iii)

In each instance of consolidation, a formal organ-

ization-level agreement provided the structure around

which interpersonal links could be enhanced and ex-

tended (cf. Dahl and Pedersen 2004).

At the interpersonal network level, one key condi-

tion was the strong commitment of individuals with

higher management positions—such as that of Evancho,

Gunnink, and Vogelesang—to make the cooperation

agreement work. Furthermore, shared beliefs in FML

opportunities were essential to enact the organizational

link. Within the SLC team, Evancho used a large kickoff

meeting and follow-up events to stimulate interpersonal

relationships as well as a shared sense for the impor-

tance of the new material. Employees who did not ﬁt

his bill of cooperative behavior were replaced, indicating

the importance of interpersonal relationships and beliefs.

The cooperative behavior of individuals was embedded

within the contracts, resulting in mutual reinforcement

of the ties at both organizational and individual levels.

Dissolution 4Contacts End with Contracts5

Dissolution episodes are those where the severance of

ties at the level of the interorganizational network coin-

cides with the severance of ties in the interpersonal net-

work. In one case, dissolution was triggered by a broken

interpersonal tie. Most cases of dissolution were trig-

gered by broken interorganizational agreements, mak-

ing these episodes the antithesis of persistence episodes,

in which interpersonal relationships persist despite the

breaking up of ties at the level of the interorganiza-

tional network. We describe one illustrative dissolution

episode.

1995: 3M Stops Cooperation with SLC. 3M had been

part of the network since the early developments of the

ﬁrst FML: Arall. 3M had supplied the adhesive ﬁlm that

contained aramid ﬁbers as a strengthener. This so-called

“prepreg” was manufactured in the United States and

supplied in small quantities to TU Delft for manufactur-

ing and testing FML. Regular visits by 3M engineers and

managers from St. Paul to Delft were arranged via the

3M Aerospace sales and marketing manager Benelux,

Ton Tauber. Although there was no direct income asso-

ciated with these supplies, 3M was committed to the

development of FML from 1981 to 1995, participating

in the shift from aramid ﬁbers to glass ﬁbers. According

to Ton Tauber, Boud Vogelesang’s enthusiasm for FML

was a key reason for 3M’s continued interest. In 1995,

however, 3M reconsidered its priorities and decided

against further investments in prepregs for FML. Over

the years, competitors had developed adhesive ﬁlms with

similar properties, and CYTEC became the new prepregs

supplier. The 3M engineers were highly committed to

the FML development at the time but had no personal

relationships to maintain, as many of them soon retired

or simply did not have personal contacts with TU Delft.

Some minimal contact was retained, but it did not affect

the business project. As Ton Tauber recalled,

The Aerospace management in the U.S. decided at that

time to support two in-house 3M projects and to drop

the Glare project 0 0 0 0 In the years since 1995 000the bond

with TU Delft has weakened. I continued to visit Boud

[Vogelesang]. I have been at his farewell ceremony, but I

was no longer really involved in Arall and Glare.

The sales and marketing manager of 3M kept pay-

ing the occasional visit to TU Delft up to his retirement

but felt no longer part of the network developing FML.

When large-scale Glare production started in 2002, 3M

had already sold its prepreg business and facilities to

CYTEC, and there was no opportunity to proﬁtably reen-

ter this market.

The comparison of episodes showed a number of

conditions that can lead to relationship dissolution. One

condition is that one or more network partners at the

organizational level no longer see attractive opportuni-

ties stemming from the interorganizational collaboration.

At the same time, the bonds at the personal level are

not sufﬁciently strong to maintain cooperation despite

the formal decision to break up (cf. Seabright et al.

1992). Advice or friendship ties were often severed as

well when the work relationship ended. In the episode

described above, and in the breakups between Boeing

and SLC in 1995 and between McDonnell Douglas and

SLC in 1995, dissolution can be explained by strategic

reorientations at the organizational level combined with

relatively weak interpersonal bonds.

In the 3M episode, decision making was largely top-

down from the United States, which meant that those

with interpersonal ties to the network had little auton-

omy. Moreover, committed 3M engineers from the early

years soon retired: this is a risk when formal coopera-

tion relies solely on a small number of contacts. If key

individuals move jobs so that interpersonal ties can no

longer be maintained, the organizational tie may break

as well. This same dynamic led to dissolution of the tie

between Garuda Airlines and SLC when a former Ph.D.

student from TU Delft ﬁrst introduced Glare cargo ﬂoors

on Garuda aircraft but left for another job within Garuda,

and the cooperation ended.

But even when interpersonal bonds are strong, tie dis-

solution at both levels may still occur. This happened in

cases of a formal ban on further exchanges with the for-

mer partner. Such organizational bans were intended to

sequester knowledge and to ensure exclusive access to

resources. They could originate from one of the mem-

bers of the dyad or from a network partner demand-

ing that ties be severed. For example, Akzo’s agreement

with TU Delft in the early years to protect FML knowl-

edge severedties at both the interorganizational and inter-

personal levels between the German Aerospace Center

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt für Luft- und

Raumfahrt (DFVLR) and TU Delft. Similarly, Airbus

demanded exclusive access to FML, cutting off compet-

ing ﬁrms’ access, and relationships dissolved between

Bombardier and Stork Fokker.

Reconﬁguration 4Contacts Change Contracts5

In reconﬁguration episodes, individuals draw on mul-

tiple interpersonal linkages to change existing interor-

ganizational collaborations and to establish new links.

Individuals use their agency not to gradually enlarge the

network, as in prospecting, or reproduce individual ties,

as in persistence, but to rearrange the structure of the

interorganizational network. Such individual actors may

draw on both interpersonal networks (in particular, ties

that are not nested within the network of formal collab-

oration partners) and their knowledge of organizational

preferences (or their ability to affect such preferences).

An illustration of this is the founding of GTM Advanced

Structures.

2004: GTM Advanced Structures Founded by FMLC

Employees. After Alcoa’s de facto withdrawal in 1995,

SLC’s activities were stopped. To continue the coordina-

tion of FML research, researchers from TU Delft ﬁnally

convinced Stork Fokker and NLR to establish FMLC in

2001. One of FMLC’s goals was to explore further appli-

cations of Glare by disseminating knowledge of Glare

to potential users and interested researchers all over the

world. Once Glare was adopted by Airbus for the A380,

FMLC’s industrial partners no longer applauded this

idea of wide dispersion of Glare knowledge; Airbus in

particular wanted to retain their competitive advantage

by keeping knowledge proprietary, and Stork Fokker

agreed to supply Glare exclusively to Airbus. As a

result, people at FMLC felt hampered in their ambitions

because they believed that for a wide acceptance of the

material, more companies should be involved in research

and experimentation. At the end of 2004, Gunnink, the

president of FMLC and an expert on FML design, left to

start a new company, GTM Advanced Structures, and the

majority of FMLC employees joined this new company.

This move was enabled by Gunnink’s enduring personal

relationships with people at organizations that were for-

mally excluded, including Bucci at Alcoa, Fredell at

the U.S. Air Force, and the former Airbus A380 pro-

gram director Jens Hinrichsen, who had moved to Alcoa.

Because of its independent position, GTM could again

set up collaborative relationships with inﬂuential part-

ners, including Alcoa. In Bucci’s words, they “reiniti-

ated the contacts with former friends.” Thus, GTM’s

independence ensured that research on Glare and other

FMLs could continue with fewer constraints, and that

knowledge of FML could be dispersed more widely. In

2007, the cooperation between GTM, TU Delft, the U.S.

Air Force, and Alcoa resulted in the launch of a new

FML product, named CentrAl (see, for example, Fredell

et al. 2007). Boeing is mentioned as one of the compa-

nies interested in CentrAl. Thus, the founding of GTM

resulted in network extensions, whereas other network

players did not aim for such an extension and indeed

resisted it. The network system changed markedly with

the establishment of GTM, because Airbus and Stork

Fokker no longer controlled the membership and direc-

tion of the FML network system.

Reconﬁguration episodes show that individuals are

only partially constrained by existing social structures

and that they may choose to enact a different structure,

despite organizational efforts to control their behavior.

A number of conditions can be identiﬁed for reconﬁgu-

ration episodes.

Reconﬁguration episodes are triggered when organi-

zations and individuals have conﬂicting views of strate-

gic opportunities (cf. Burgelman and Grove 1996). They

develop competing strategic directions, although formal-

ized contracts are needed to exploit the complementary

resources for such opportunities. Individuals use their

personal contacts to pursue opportunities not in line with

management decisions, thus bending things to their will

and in the direction they consider to be right.

At the interorganizational network level, structural

properties of the network constrained reconﬁguration, as

the existing contract between Stork Fokker and Airbus

constrained cooperation with other network parties. For

example, possibilities for FMLC employees were lim-

ited through Stork Fokker’s inﬂuence on FMLC. As

such, these contractual obligations constituted structural

rigidities (cf. Leonard-Barton 1992). The reconﬁguration

episodes show that rearrangement could occur despite

such rigidities. In all of these cases, individual agency

appeared as the initiating spark.

At the interpersonal network level, actions of individu-

als were enabled by their advice and friendship ties with

individuals outside of the network of formal partners.

Building on shared beliefs and passions, such ties bro-

kered the reconﬁguration at the organizational level. In

another reconﬁguration episode, Vogelesang’s interper-

sonal relationships with people at both Akzo and Alcoa

helped to bring both ﬁrms into a new agreement in 1991.

To achieve this, Vogelesang wrote to Evancho at Alcoa

(Vlot 2001, p. 96):

It was for us very painful to hear from you that some

people at Alcoa are feeling themselves betrayed by us.

From the bottom of my heart I tell you that they have

no reason at all to think like that 0 0 0 0 But one thing is

essential for us, there needs to be a full understanding

and conﬁdence between both our groups.

The utilization of these interpersonal contacts was

further enabled by the professional autonomy and the

expert power of individuals. For example, the sale of

Akzo Nobel’s Glare division to Stork in 1999 was bro-

kered by the contacts of former Fokker and Airbus exec-

utive Daan Krook with government representatives, and

it was enabled by interpersonal links between Akzo

Nobel’s higher management and that of Stork. In a 1991

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

reconﬁguration episode, the inventors of Arall could

use their expert status and high degree of autonomy

as university researchers to promote Glare instead of

Arall. Many potential aerospace customers were eager

to accept this newer material because the inventors of

the earlier material themselves backed it. Consequently,

Alcoa had to make the best of a bad bargain and went

along with this new direction in FML development.

Episode Sequences

To shed more light on the dynamic evolution of the

network, we analyzed sequences of episodes. Whereas

individual episodes show relatively short-term network

dynamics, the analysis of episode sequences high-

lights longer-term network dynamics. These longer-term

dynamics exemplify the duality of structure because

actions in earlier episodes create conditions for future

episodes. The counts of successions among types of

episodes, displayed in Table 3, show a broad array of

possible connections. Each episode alters interpersonal

or interorganizational relations, and these relations may

ﬁgure as direct or indirect ties in subsequent episodes.

The potential direct and indirect effects of ties at both

levels imply that multiple and variegated episodes can

branch out of any singular episode. This explains the

rather messy nature of network development, as por-

trayed in Figure 1. Yet some successions occurred more

frequently than others. Figure 2 highlights four pre-

vailing sequences in the network’s dynamics based on

successions that occurred at least twice. Each of these

prevailing sequences can be explained by the constella-

tion of conditions that are the outcome of one episode

and form antecedents for a subsequent episode, in com-

bination with exogenous changes.

The ﬁrst (1) prevailing sequence is a cycle among

prospecting and consolidation episodes. In such suc-

cessions, interpersonal and interorganizational networks

expanded and mutually reinforced each other. Consoli-

dation solidiﬁed the interpersonal and interorganizational

ties created through prospecting, building on the interor-

ganizational strategy and opportunity ﬁt that emerged

from prospecting. In addition, this succession was cat-

alyzed by individuals with hierarchical or expert power

effectuating the consolidation. Subsequently, network-

wide interorganizational commitment and alignment with

Figure 2 Prevailing Sequence Among Episodes

Prospecting

Persistence Dissolution

Reconfiguration

Consolidation

(1)

(4) (3)

(2)

(1)

the interpersonal network were leveraged to form new

interpersonal ties, thus subsequently enabling further

prospecting.

At the interpersonal level, the strengthening of inter-

personal ties and the development of shared beliefs about

FML were mutually reinforcing in these sequences.

Evancho stated,

I think it was a community because they were all tech-

nicians initially. Over a period of time, they all got to

know each other and formed very good friendships.

Technologists shared evaluation criteria to assess mate-

rials for potential application in aircraft (e.g., damage

tolerance, fatigue properties, weight). For many of them,

professional prestige and career prospects depended on

FML success. Frequent interactions strengthened rela-

tionships and resulted in a shared understanding and

a commitment to the development and application of

FML, even characterized by some as “a passion.” This, in

turn, increased the tendency to cooperate and enhanced

the pursuit of formal and organizationally consolidated

collaboration.

A second (2) prevailing sequence in network devel-

opment is formed by successions of consolidation

and reconﬁguration. The reinforcement of interpersonal

and interorganizational relations through successions

of prospecting and consolidation was interrupted in

successions of consolidation and reconﬁguration, which

emerged because of tensions between organizational

strategies and individual beliefs. At times, agreements

between organizations constrained individuals to act

fully in accordance with their beliefs, for example, by

prohibiting contacts with organizations not included in

the agreement. Consider for instance how Vogelesang at

TU Delft experienced the consolidated network around

the cooperation between Airbus and Stork Fokker:

Eventually, [Stork] Fokker started to collaborate with Air-

bus. And those two told the Americans that they were

not getting any information. They would not get a sub-

license. So that’s the situation. For me, as a university

[researcher], that was very annoying, because we obvi-

ously were used to the freedom to experiment in the lab.

Thus, network consolidation aligned and solidiﬁed ties

at both levels yet, at the same time, acted as a con-

straint for some to fully enact personal beliefs or pursue

certain technological or network development directions.

Thus, in the perspective of technology-oriented individ-

uals, consolidation resulted in overembeddedness (cf.

Uzzi 1997)—consolidated structures were experienced

as overly constraining. In cases like this, tensions could

build up, resulting in attempts to release this tension by

establishing new or reconﬁguring existing interorganiza-

tional arrangements. Important enablers for the sequenc-

ing of (repeated) consolidation and reconﬁguration were

strong interpersonal ties—both beyond and nested in

the interorganizational collaboration—of individuals that

could shape both levels of network cooperation because

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

of their expert status (see Table 3). Thus, the consolida-

tion in the 2002 cooperation between Airbus and Stork

Fokker led to a reconﬁguration of the network in 2004

with the founding of GTM. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows

that such a reconﬁguration can result in new consoli-

dation, if strategic ﬁt with the new network direction

emerges at the interorganizational level, aligned with

shared personal beliefs and enabled by hierarchical or

expert power.

The third (3) prevailing sequence describes network

contraction from prospecting and consolidation toward

dissolution, representing a cul-de-sac in network devel-

opment. Dissolution episodes were prompted by critical

changes in conditions at the organizational level: the ﬁt

between strategy and opportunity vanished, or indirect

interorganizational ties constrained further collaboration.

Such changes were possible because FML collaboration

was based on not only technological but also commer-

cial, ﬁnancial, strategic, and legal concerns. Bucci noted,

The Alcoa Technical Center researchers were excited

about these kinds of innovative ideas 000as a break-

through technology that could compete and potentially

surpass the promise of composites. However, this did not

come without internal conﬂict as business segments of

the company, while supporting a defense against [other

companies’] composites, viewed the technology as a

departure from its traditional ﬂat rolled product manu-

facturing comfort zone 000as well as a technology that

could potentially erode some [of our own] highly prof-

itable sheet and plate business.

Perceptions of strategic ﬁt between organizations

changed over time, as a result of “strategic drift”

(cf. Johnson 1988) and exogenous changes in markets

and technologies (cf. Ahuja 2000, Gulati and Gargiulo

1999). Evaluations of such strategy and opportunity ﬁt

were affected by changes in board membership, the

initiation and abandonment of aircraft development pro-

grams, the rise of composites as a competing mate-

rial, and moves of competitors and customers. As a

result, interorganizational collaboration proved volatile

and transient, as evidenced, for example, by Alcoa’s

changing involvement in FML. Similarly, the involve-

ment of Bombardier in 1996 did not grow into wider

network cooperation. On the contrary, for Bombardier,

the strategic opportunity to apply Glare gradually disap-

peared as composites gained ground. Moreover, indirect

ties consolidated around Stork Fokker and Airbus pre-

vented further consolidation around Bombardier. Even-

tually, the collaboration was halted at the corporate level,

whereas at the interpersonal level, individuals lacked the

hierarchical position and autonomy to continue cooper-

ation, which precluded persistence to occur.

The fourth (4) and last prevailing sequence relates

to persistence as a bridge between consolidation and

future prospecting, showing network survival and rein-

vigoration against the tide. Whereas the involvement of

organizations was subject to external developments and

multiple criteria, the involvement of individuals was rel-

atively stable as relationships and shared beliefs coe-

volved. Some organizations chose to abandon FML for

commercial or strategic reasons, whereas individuals

remained committed to FML:

You’ll ﬁnd that technologists will tend to have their alle-

giance to technology before they have allegiance to busi-

ness. That’s my experience. (Bill Evancho)

Interorganizational ties were broken in persistence

episodes, but individuals used their autonomy and hier-

archical or expert power to maintain interpersonal ties

in which beliefs about technological developments were

shared. These ties helped to create or recreate formal-

ized interorganizational relationships—under the con-

dition that a new ﬁt with the organizational strategy

emerged.

Discussion

This paper provides a unique study of the ongoing inter-

action between interpersonal and interorganizational net-

works. Using structuration theory as a lens to understand

interorganizational collaboration, our analysis reveals

ﬁve episode types where (1) changes in interorgani-

zational networks are resisted by individuals to retain

or reenact existing structures (persistence), (2) interper-

sonal networks play a catalytic role later ratiﬁed by

interorganizational networks (prospecting), (3) interper-

sonal networks are cultivated within interorganizational

networks (consolidation), (4) severed interorganizational

ties coincide with severed interpersonal ties (dissolu-

tion), and (5) individual actions rooted in interpersonal

networks change the network system (reconﬁguration).

These episode types corroborate and extend prior lit-

erature. Prospecting captures the established ﬁnding

that interpersonal networks enable the development of

more formal networks (e.g., Barden and Mitchell 2007,

Rosenkopf et al. 2001), consolidation conﬁrms that for-

mal collaborations breed informal networks (Dahl and

Pedersen 2004, Gulati 1995a), and dissolution was also

observed before (Seabright et al. 1992). The identiﬁca-

tion of reconﬁguration and persistence, characterized by

tensions between interpersonal and interorganizational

collaboration, adds novelty to the literature, as does our

analysis of episode sequences.

Our ﬁndings on the interaction of interpersonal and

interorganizational networks advance emerging theory

on multiple levels of embeddedness (Dacin et al. 1999,

Hagedoorn 2006). First, our ﬁndings show network

embeddedness to be distributed across individuals in

organizations (insofar as embeddedness depends on inter-

personal relations). Whereas earlier studies have largely

focused on personal ties among organizational lead-

ers, we ﬁnd inﬂuential interpersonal contacts among a

range of boundary spanners, including researchers and

developers, marketers, program managers, midlevel man-

agers, and group leaders (cf. Rosenkopf et al. 2001).

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Because contacts primarily concern individuals, they are

not directly available to other organization members or

executives. The enabling and constraining effects of these

ties do not concern the organization as a whole, nor a sin-

gle actor within an organization like a CEO, but dispersed

parts of it, making embeddedness a distributed resource.

Second, the investigation of the multiple levels in-

volved in network embeddedness revealed incongruence

among these levels. Rousseau (1985) argued that theo-

ries covering multiple levels should take into account the

consequences of partial inclusion in higher-level entities.

In our study, interpersonal relations that were not nested

within interorganizational relationships contributed sig-

niﬁcantly to network dynamics. In particular, the persis-

tence and reconﬁguration episodes revealed in this study

stem from limited inclusion of interpersonal relations

in interorganizational relations. The opportunities arising

from the shared beliefs and commitment in interpersonal

relations may differ from, and even conﬂict with, those

arising from interorganizational-level relations. Interper-

sonal relationships that are beyond interorganizational

relations experience less inﬂuence from those interorga-

nizational relations (cf. Rousseau 1985) and are more

likely to be a source of change. By acknowledging this

incongruence between interorganizational and interper-

sonal relations, we provide a richer and more nuanced

view of the multiple levels of embeddedness.

Third, results show that the multiple levels of embed-

dedness apply both to relational and structural embed-

dedness. Existing studies of the role of interpersonal

relationships were limited to dyads of organizations

(e.g., Barden and Mitchell 2007, Gulati and Sytch

2008, Rosenkopf et al. 2001, Zaheer et al. 1998). We

broadened the analysis from the dyad to the network.

The relations among organizations and individuals were

surrounded by relations with and among other organi-

zations and individuals. These indirect ties were inﬂu-

ential in several of the episodes analyzed in our case

study. Indirect interpersonal ties helped to establish and

change interorganizational ties and supported the persis-

tence of direct interpersonal ties. Similar effects were

found at the interorganizational level (cf. Gulati 2007),

and we also identiﬁed constraining effects of indirect

interorganizational ties in dissolution and reconﬁgura-

tion episodes. The signiﬁcance of indirect interpersonal

ties adds to potential incongruence between levels of

embeddedness.

These characteristics of the multiple levels of embed-

dedness have implications for both short-term and

longer-term network development and change processes.

Using the “duality of structure” as a sensitizing concept,

we investigated sequences of episodes in which struc-

tures are both the medium and the outcome of action.

The dynamics that follow from the multiple levels of

embeddedness support a dialectical understanding of

interorganizational collaboration and point at limitations

of evolutionary and teleological explanations. Dialec-

tical processes are driven by multiple entities pursu-

ing antithetical objectives and may lead to constructive

change (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). Earlier dialec-

tical process studies have analyzed tensions between

partnering organizations (de Rond and Bouchikhi 2004,

Sydow 2004). We add a “vertical” dimension to this

“horizontal” dimension: just as the interpersonal network

is partly controlled by organizations, the interorganiza-

tional network is also partly controlled by interpersonal

networking. Tensions are introduced in a network sys-

tem when interpersonal relations are distributed and not

fully nested in interorganizational relations, and these

tensions can lead to network actions that resolve tensions

or create new ones.

Analysis of sequences among episodes revealed con-

vergent and divergent dialectics in the long-term interac-

tions of the interorganizational or interpersonal network.

The two levels of the network system were found to

be mutually reinforcing when individual relations helped

to create and exploit relations between organizations,

whereas organization-level arrangements supported the

development of interpersonal ties. However, interper-

sonal ties did not only lubricate interorganizational-level

collaboration; they also enabled divergent dynamics.

Consolidation was also followed by reconﬁguration,

when interorganizational agreements constrained indi-

viduals who in turn used their interpersonal ties to

change and renew the network. Persistence bridged

organization-level collaborations when beliefs shared in

interpersonal relations proved to be more stable than

organizational commitments.

We found two factors that increased the signiﬁcance

of individual-level relations for interorganizational net-

work dynamics: (1) The divergence of individual beliefs

and organization-level strategic considerations spur per-

sistence and reconﬁguration (cf. Burgelman and Grove

1996). In our study, individual-level collaboration was

often based on a shared drive to advance FML, whereas

decision making at the organizational level included

commercial, strategic, and legal motives as well. The

inclusion of multiple motives resulted in agreements

that also constrained individuals to act on shared beliefs

and that were more susceptible to exogenous changes.

(2) The positions of individuals inﬂuence the degree to

which they are able to deploy interpersonal relations.

A degree of autonomy helps to sustain interpersonal con-

tacts that are not nested in interorganizational relations,

a higher hierarchical position helps to transform inter-

personal contacts into interorganizational agreements,

and expert power helps to use interpersonal networks to

reconﬁgure and shake up a network system.

Simultaneously, our ﬁndings point at limits of evo-

lutionary and teleological explanations of network

dynamics. Previous studies on embeddedness found

evolutionary, path-dependent network development pro-

cesses, exempliﬁed by the tendency to replicate exist-

ing ties (Gulati 1995b, Gulati and Gargiulo 1999). The

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

dominant explanation for tie replication is that collabora-

tion creates trust between organizations, which increases

the likelihood of future collaboration. Indeed, our ﬁnd-

ings show how the replication of ties may occur through

consolidation and prospecting, stressing the dependence

on interpersonal networks as the locus of trust and the

source of renewal of the interorganizational relationship.

This mechanism of path dependence, however, does not

explain all network dynamics resulting from embedded-

ness. Because interpersonal relations may be dispersed

over organizations and may be more than a trivial repro-

duction of interorganizational relations, existing relations

allow multiple paths to be explored. The multiple direct

and indirect ties at both levels that may be enacted cre-

ate an array of potential paths for network change. The

structuration of network relations in such a layered sys-

tem does not only amount to the reproduction of relations

but also opens up alternative opportunities, including sig-

niﬁcant departures from existing paths.

Network dynamics in this study also point to limi-

tations of intentional network design and orchestration,

as stressed in teleological perspectives (e.g., Dhanaraj

and Parkhe 2006, Doz et al. 2000). Our study did show

instances of proactive network construction, for exam-

ple, in the 1991 consolidation episode centering on SLC.

The distributed nature of embeddedness, though, makes

it more difﬁcult to purposefully use embeddedness as a

strategic organizational resource. The more the beliefs

and interests shared at the individual level differ from

organizational strategies, and the more individuals have

the autonomy and the position to use their relations, the

more the network system will defy orchestration.

Paradoxically, the diverging dialectics that defy

orchestration and path dependence were essential for

network continuity and reinvigoration of collaboration

in our study. Organizations entered but also withdrew

from the network for strategic reasons, and these dynam-

ics threatened the survival of the network system. At

the same time, the interpersonal network proved fairly

stable, and this stability enabled continued collabora-

tion and eventual reemergence of interorganizational

relations. Network reconﬁguration also opened up new

developments, as when the founding of GTM created

opportunities not feasible within the structure in which

Airbus and Stork Fokker were central. Thus, we extend

Gulati and Puranam’s (2009) argument that inconsis-

tencies between formal and informal organization are

valuable for renewal from the intraorganizational to the

interorganizational domain.

Finally, interpersonal relations may aggravate as well

as reduce negative consequences of embeddedness.

A key mechanism of embeddedness in our case study

was the development of shared beliefs and mutual under-

standing among individuals in the network. Yet reinforc-

ing effects of relations and shared understanding might

also turn into a barrier to renewal. The commitments

and “blindness” associated with existing relationships

make it more difﬁcult to enter into new relationships

(Capaldo 2007, Gargiulo and Benassi 2000, Uzzi 1997).

Although interpersonal relationships may be a source

of such overembeddedness, they can also be used to

overcome that dark side. Episodes of prospecting and

reconﬁguration can open up new possibilities for collab-

oration, thus reducing the threat of becoming locked into

structural rigidities.

These theoretical advancements notwithstanding, there

are several limitations to this study. First, the ﬁndings

are based on a retrospective study, which limits the accu-

racy and completeness of data, in particular, on inter-

personal relations from the early phases of the case his-

tory. A real-time network development study instead of

a retrospective study could uncover additional insights in

the interaction between interpersonal and interorganiza-

tional networks because such a study can gather informa-

tion from all participants and all possible relations over

time. Second, our ﬁndings are based on a single case in

a speciﬁc context. The ﬁve episode types discerned here

may be typical for multipartner alliances and networks

in an innovation context, as the importance of interper-

sonal networks in R&D consortia is well established, and

networks around technology ventures tend be based on

embedded relations instead of arms-length relations (e.g.,

Doz et al. 2000, Liebeskind et al. 1996, Hite and Hesterly

2001). Yet similar interactions between interpersonal and

interorganizational networks might also be found in other

contexts that center on relatively autonomous profession-

als, who have to balance loyalty toward their organiza-

tion with loyalties toward the community of peers and

loyalty toward a shared idea, vision, or passion. Exam-

ples could be the network system of medical specialists

or that of politicians and political parties. Furthermore,

as the network around FML has showed more expansion

than contraction so far, case studies of networks exhibit-

ing more contraction may uncover variants of the episode

types we describe. Future research may also discrimi-

nate between different types of interorganizational rela-

tions, such as alliances, supply relationships, or licensing,

because these types are associated with different levels

of embeddedness at the interorganizational level (Gulati

1995a). Finally, we have limited our analysis to two lev-

els: interpersonal networks and interorganizational net-

works. One way to extend this research is to include other

levels in the analysis, such as the institutional environ-

ment (cf. Marchington and Vincent 2004) and organiza-

tional interunit relations (cf. Brass et al. 2004).

Conclusion

This study has explored a new direction for research

on interorganizational networks, by investigating dynam-

ics resulting from multiple levels of embeddedness in

a retrospective longitudinal case study. By going back

30 years in history, we could analyze network dynamics

associated with multiple failed and successful attempts

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

to apply FML in the primary structure of aircraft. This

long period of time enabled us to link conditions for

agency in one episode back to structures created in

episodes as far as 10 years back. In the analysis of

episodes, we identiﬁed ﬁve types of interaction between

interpersonal and interorganizational networks, condi-

tions for these episode types, and sequences among

them. Our ﬁndings indicate that embeddedness in rela-

tions and networks is no centrally available resource,

but it is partly distributed over individuals in organiza-

tions and not congruent across levels. As a result, the

types of interaction entail both converging and diverging

dialectics between interpersonal and interorganizational

networks, which contributes to the emergent nature of

network development. The dialectical structuration of

interorganizational and interpersonal networks affects

the path-dependent, evolutionary processes associated

with embeddedness and limits the teleological shaping

of networks. We conclude that full understanding of

network development requires the combination of these

multiple theoretical mechanisms (cf. de Rond 2003).

Future research is needed to explore the balance and

interplay of these mechanisms in other network contexts.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank senior editor Tina Dacin and three anony-

mous reviewers for their constructive feedback and guidance

throughout the review process. They are grateful to Mariann

Jelinek, Arjan van Weele, Myriam Cloodt, Tony Hak, and sem-

inar participants at Tilburg University, the Rotterdam School

of Management, and the University of Reading for comments

and input during the development of this paper. Finally, they

thank the interviewees for generously giving their time. An

earlier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of

Management Conference 2007. All errors are the responsibil-

ity of the authors.

References

Ahuja, G. 2000. The duality of collaboration: Inducements and oppor-

tunities in the formation of interﬁrm linkages. Strategic Man-

agement J. 21(3) 317–343.

Aiken, M., J. Hage. 1968. Organizational interdependence and intra-

organizational structure. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 33(6) 912–930.

Ariño, A., J. de la Torre. 1998. Learning from failure: Towards an

evolutionary model of collaborative ventures. Organ. Sci. 9(3)

306–325.

Barden, J. Q., W. Mitchell. 2007. Disentangling the inﬂuences of lead-

ers’ relational embeddedness on interorganizational exchange.

Acad. Management J. 50(6) 1440–1461.

Bell, J., B. den Ouden, G. W. Ziggers. 2006. Dynamics of cooper-

ation: At the brink of irrelevance. J. Management Stud. 43(7)

1607–1619.

Blumer, H. 1954. What is wrong with social theory? Amer. Sociol.

Rev. 19(1) 3–10.

Bouty, I. 2000. Interpersonal and interaction inﬂuences on informal

resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organiza-

tional boundaries. Acad. Management J. 43(1) 50–65.

Brass, D. J., J. Galaskiewicz, H. R. Greve, W. Tsai. 2004. Taking

stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective.

Acad. Management J. 47(6) 795–817.

Brown, J. S., P. Duguid. 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-

practice perspective. Organ. Sci. 12(2) 198–213.

Browning, L. D., J. M. Beyer, J. C. Shetler. 1995. Building cooper-

ation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semicom-

puter industry. Acad. Management J. 38(1) 113–151.

Burgelman, R. A., A. S. Grove. 1996. Strategic dissonance. Calif.

Management Rev. 38(2) 8–28.

Capaldo, A. 2007. Network structure and innovation: The leveraging

of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic

Management J. 28(6) 585–608.

Chung, S. A., H. Singh, K. Lee. 2000. Complementarity, status simi-

larity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strate-

gic Management J. 21(1) 1–22.

Dacin, M. T., M. J. Ventresca, B. D. Beal. 1999. The embeddedness

of organizations: Dialogue and directions. J. Management 25(3)

317–356.

Dahl, M. S., C. Ø. R. Pedersen. 2004. Knowledge ﬂows through infor-

mal contacts in industrial clusters: Myth or reality? Res. Policy

33(10) 1673–1686.

Das, T. K., B.–S. Teng. 2000. Instabilities of strategic alliances:

An internal tensions perspective. Organ. Sci. 11(1) 77–101.

D’Aunno, T. A., H. S. Zuckerman. 1987. A life-cycle model of orga-

nizational federations: The case of hospitals. Acad. Management

Rev. 12(3) 534–545.

de Rond, M. 2003. Strategic Alliances as Social Facts: Business,

Biotechnology, and Intellectual History. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.

de Rond, M., H. Bouchikhi. 2004. On the dialectics of strategic

alliances. Organ. Sci. 15(1) 56–69.

Dhanaraj, C., A. Parkhe. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks.

Acad. Management Rev. 31(3) 659–669.

Doz, Y. L. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances:

Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Manage-

ment J. 17(S1) 55–83.

Doz, Y. L., P. M. Olk, P. S. Ring. 2000. Formation processes of R&D

consortia: Which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic

Management J. 21(3) 239–266.

Eisenhardt, K. M., C. B. Schoonhoven. 1996. Resource-based view

of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in

entrepreneurial ﬁrms. Organ. Sci. 7(2) 136–150.

Fredell, R. 1994. Damage tolerant repair techniques for pressurized

aircraft fuselages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Delft Uni-

versity of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Fredell, R. S., J. W. Gunnink, R. J. Bucci, J. Hinrichsen. 2007. “Care-

free” hybrid wing structures for aging USAF transports. Paper,

First International Conference on Damage Tolerance of Aircraft

Structures, September 25–28, Delft University of Technology,

Delft, The Netherlands.

Gargiulo, M., M. Benassi. 2000. Trapped in your own net? Network

cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital.

Organ. Sci. 11(2) 183–196.

Giddens, A. 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method. Basic Books,

New York.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cam-

bridge, UK.

Golden, B. R. 1992. The past is the past—Or is it? The use of retro-

spective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Acad. Manage-

ment J. 35(4) 848–860.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The

problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3) 481–510.

Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociol-

ogy. N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, eds. Networks and Organizations:

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Strucutre, For m and Action. Harvard Business School Press,

Boston, 25–56.

Gregory, M. A., G. H. J. J. Roebroeks. 1991. Fiber-metal laminates:

A solution to weight, strength, and fatigue problems. Paper, 30th

Annual Conference of Metallurgists, August 18–21, Metallurgi-

cal Society of CIM, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy

and Petroleum, Ottowa, ON, Canada.

Gulati, R. 1995a. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of

repeated ties for contractual choices in alliances. Acad. Manage-

ment J. 38(1) 85–112.

Gulati, R. 1995b. Social structure and alliance formation patterns:

A longitudinal analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(4) 619–652.

Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management J.

19(4) 293–317.

Gulati, R. 2007. Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Afﬁlia-

tions and Other Relational Assets. Oxford University Press,

Oxford, UK.

Gulati, R., M. Gargiulo. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks

come from? Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5) 1439–1493.

Gulati, R., P. Puranam. 2009. Renewal through reorganization: The

value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organiza-

tion. Organ. Sci. 20(2) 422–440.

Gulati, R., M. Sytch. 2008. Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting

the antecedents of trust. Managerial Decision Econom. 29(2–3)

165–190.

Gulati, R., J. D. Westphal. 1999. Cooperative or controlling? The

effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks

on the formation of joint ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(3)

473–506.

Hagedoorn, J. 2006. Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of

interﬁrm partnership formation. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3)

670–680.

Halinen, A., A. Salmi, V. Havila. 1999. From dyadic change to chang-

ing business networks: An analytical framework. J. Management

Stud. 36(6) 779–794.

Hite, J. M., W. S. Hesterly. 2001. The evolution of ﬁrm networks:

From emergence to early growth of the ﬁrm. Strategic Manage-

ment J. 22(3) 275–286.

Huber, G. P., D. J. Power. 1985. Retrospective reports of strategic-

level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strate-

gic Management J. 6(2) 171–180.

Hung, H. 2006. Formation and survival of new ventures: A path from

interpersonal to interorganizational networks. Internat. Small

Bus. J. 24(4) 359–378.

Jap, S. D., E. Anderson. 2007. Testing a life-cycle theory of cooper-

ative interorganizational relationships: Movement across stages

and performance. Management Sci. 53(2) 260–275.

Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Trian-

gulation in action. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(4) 602–611.

Johnson, G. 1988. Rethinking incrementalism. Strategic Manage-

ment J. 9(1) 75–91.

Jones, C., W. S. Hesterly, S. P. Borgatti. 1997. A general theory of net-

work governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms.

Acad. Management Rev. 22(4) 911–945.

Katz, J. S., B. R. Martin. 1997. What is research collaboration? Res.

Policy 26(1) 1–18.

Kim, J. W., M. C. Higgins. 2007. Where do alliances come from?

The effects of upper echelons on alliance formation. Res. Policy

36(4) 499–514.

Klein, K. J., S. L. Palmer, A. B. Conn. 2000. Interorganizational

relationships: A multilevel perspective. K. J. Klein, S. W. J.

Kozlowski, eds. Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in

Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 267–307.

Koza, M. P., A. Y. Lewin. 1999. The coevolution of network alliances:

A longitudinal analysis of an international professional service

network. Organ. Sci. 10(5) 638–653.

Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure,

cognition, and power in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(2)

342–369.

Kreiner, K., M. Schultz. 1993. Informal collaboration in R&D: The

formation of networks across organizations. Organ. Stud. 14(2)

189–209.

Kumar, R., K. O. Nti. 1998. Differential learning and interaction in

alliance dynamics: A process and outcome discrepancy model.

Organ. Sci. 9(3) 356–367.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad.

Management Rev. 24(4) 691–710.

Laudel, G. 2002. What do we measure by co-authorships? Res. Eval-

uation 11(1) 3–15.

Laumann, E. O., J. Galaskiewicz, P. V. Marsden. 1978. Community

structure as interorganizational linkages. Annual Rev. Sociol. 4

455–484.

Lee, T. W. 1999. Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational

Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities:

A paradox in managing product development. Strategic Man-

agement J. 13(S1) 111–125.

Li, S. X., W. B. Berta. 2002. The ties that bind: Strategic actions and

status structure in the US investment banking industry. Organ.

Stud. 23(3) 339–368.

Liebeskind, J. P., A. L. Oliver, L. Zucker, M. Brewer. 1996. Social net-

works, learning, and ﬂexibility: Sourcing scientiﬁc knowledge

in new biotechnology ﬁrms. Organ. Sci. 7(4) 428–443.

Lorenzoni, G., A. Lipparini. 1999. The leveraging of interﬁrm rela-

tionships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudi-

nal study. Strategic Management J. 20(4) 317–338.

Marchington, M., S. Vincent. 2004. Analysing the inﬂuence of insti-

tutional, organizational and interpersonal forces in shaping inter-

organizational relations. J. Management Stud. 41(6) 1029–1056.

McGuire, J. B. 1988. A dialectical analysis of interorganizational net-

works. J. Management 14(1) 109–124.

Meyer, M., S. Bhattacharya. 2004. Commonalities and differences

between scholarly and technological collaboration. Scientomet-

rics 61(3) 443–456.

Miller, C. C., L. B. Cardinal, W. H. Glick. 1997. Retrospective reports

in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence.

Acad. Management J. 40(1) 189–204.

Mueller, R. P. G. 1995. An experimental and analytical investiga-

tion on the fatigue behaviour of fuselage riveted lap joints.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technol-

ogy, Delft, The Netherlands.

Oliver, A. L., J. Liebeskind. 1998. Three levels of networking for

sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implications for

studying interorganizational networks. Internat. Stud. Manage-

ment Organ. 27(4) 76–103.

Olk, P., C. Young. 1997. Why members stay in or leave an R&D con-

sortium: Performance and conditions of membership as determi-

nants of continuity. Strategic Management J. 18(11) 855–877.

Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal ﬁeld research on change: Theory

and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3) 267–292.

Powell, W. W., K. Koput, L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational

collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning

in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1) 116–145.

Berends, van Burg, and van Raaij: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Powell, W. W., D. R. White, K. W. Koput, J. Owen-Smith. 2005.

Networks dynamics and ﬁeld evolution: The growth of interor-

ganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Amer. J. Sociol.

110(4) 1132–1205.

Pozzebon, M., A. Pinsonneault. 2005. Challenges in conducting

empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT

research. Organ. Stud. 26(9) 1353–1376.

Ring, P. S., A. H. Van de Ven. 1994. Developmental processes of

cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management

Rev. 19(1) 90–118.

Rosenkopf, L., A. Metiu, V. P. George. 2001. From the bottom up?

Technical committee activity and alliance formation. Admin. Sci.

Quart. 46(4) 748–772.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research:

Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. L. L. Cummings, B. M.

Staw, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7. JAI

Press, Greenwich, CT, 1–37.

Schrader, S. 1991. Informal technology transfer between ﬁrms: Coop-

eration through information trading. Res. Policy 20(2) 153–170.

Schwenk, C. R. 1985. The use of participant recollection in the mod-

elling of organizational decision processes. Acad. Management

Rev. 10(3) 496–503.

Seabright, M. A., D. A. Levinthal, M. Fichman. 1992. Role of indi-

vidual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational rela-

tionships. Acad. Management J. 35(1) 122–160.

Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Acad. Manage-

ment J. 50(1) 20–24.

Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Sydow, J. 2004. Network development by means of network evalua-

tion? Explorative insights from a case in the ﬁnancial services

industry. Human Relations 57(2) 201–220.

Sydow, J., A. Windeler. 1998. Organizing and evaluating interﬁrm

networks: A structurationist perspective on network processes

and effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 9(3) 265–284.

Sydow, J., A. Windeler. 2003. Knowledge, trust, and control: Manag-

ing tensions and contradictions in a regional network of service

ﬁrms. Internat. Stud. Management Organ. 33(2) 69–99.

Tichy, N. M., M. L. Tushman, C. Fombrun. 1979. Social net-

work analysis for organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 4(4)

507–519.

Tsai, W. 2000. Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation

of intra-organizational linkages. Strategic Management J. 21(9)

925–939.

Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interﬁrm net-

works: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1)

35–67.

Van de Ven, A. H. 1976. On the nature, formation, and maintenance

of relations among organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 1(4)

24–36.

Van de Ven, A. H., M. S. Poole. 1995. Explaining development

and change in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3)

510–540.

Vermeeren, C., ed. 2002. Around Glare: A New Aircraft Mate-

rial in Context. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands.

Vlot, A. 2001. Glare: History of the Development of a New Air-

craft Material. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands.

Vlot, A., J. W. Gunnink, eds. 2001. Fiber Metal Laminates: An

Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands.

Vogelesang, B. 2003. Fibre metal laminates: The development of a

new family of hybrid materials. Presentation, 19th Plantema

Memorial Lecture, ICAF Symposium, May 5–9, Lucern,

Switzerland.

von Hippel, E. 1987. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how

trading. Res. Policy 16(6) 291–302.

Walker, G., B. Kogut, W. Shan. 1997. Social capital, structural holes

and the formation of an industry network. Organ. Sci. 8(2)

109–125.

Westphal, J. D., S. Boivie, D. H. M. Chng. 2006. The strategic impe-

tus for social network ties: Reconstituting broken CEO friend-

ship ties. Strategic Management J. 27(5) 425–445.

Wu, H. F., L. L. Wu, W. J. Slagter, J. L. Verolme. 1994. Use of rule

of mixtures and metal volume fraction for mechanical property

predictions of ﬁber-reinforced aluminum laminates. J. Materials

Sci. 29(17) 4583–4591.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed.

Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zaheer, A., B. McEvily, V. Perrone. 1998. Does trust matter? Explor-

ing the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on

performance. Organ. Sci. 9(2) 141–159.

Zeitz, G. 1980. Interorganizational dialectics. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25(1)

72–88.

Hans Berends is an assistant professor in the Innova-

tion, Technology Entrepreneurship and Marketing Group at

the Eindhoven University of Technology. His research interests

concern process dynamics of innovation and organizational

learning.

Elco van Burg is an assistant professor in the Innova-

tion, Technology Entrepreneurship and Marketing Group at the

Eindhoven University of Technology. He studies entrepreneur-

ship and innovation processes.

Erik M. van Raaij is an assistant professor of purchas-

ing and supply management at the Rotterdam School of Man-

agement, Erasmus University. His current research focuses on

strategic sourcing and buyer–supplier relationships.

Nähe als Bedingung – Die Formation von Konsortien interorganisationaler Kollaborationsprojekte zwischen Wissenschaft & Wirtschaft

Chapter

Feb 2023

Interorganisationale Kollaborationsprojekte verbinden heterogene Partner und bringen neues Wissen und Innovationen hervor. Die bisherige Forschung zu solchen Projekten hat sich ausführlich mit dem Effekt aber kaum mit der Formation der Projektkonsortien befasst. In unserem Beitrag rekonstruieren wir die Formation von 24 staatlich geförderten Kollaborationsprojekten, in denen sich Partner aus Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft temporär verbunden haben. Dabei fragen wir insbesondere danach, wie die FormationsprozesseFormationsprozesse durch kognitive, organisationale, soziale, institutionelle und geographische Formen von Nähe. Formen von Nähe zwischen einzelnen Partnern strukturiert werden. Im systematischen Vergleich der Fälle zeigen wir, wie die Einbettung der Akteure in mehrdimensionale Nähe-Beziehungsnetzwerke die Formation der Konsortien erklärt. Ausgehend von unserem Material formulieren wir 8 Propositionen, die identifizierte Muster im Formationsprozess beschreiben.

Network Orchestration: Uma Revisão Sistemática da Literatura Sobre o Tema

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Oct 2020

Aruana Rosa Souza Luz

RESUMO Esse trabalho teve por objetivo conhecer e investigar o estado da arte dos estudos relacionados ao tema network orchestration, enfocando na compreensão das abordagens teóricas relacionadas ao tema, oportunidades de pesquisa e contribuição para o campo conceitual de redes interorganizacionais. A literatura em network orchestration ainda está no começo do seu desenvolvimento. O tema é abordado em seis grandes vertentes teóricas, sendo que a vertente de redes de inovação é a mais consolidada. Ao final da análise, sugerem-se 5 macro linhas para pesquisas futuras. Palavras-chave: Orquestração de redes. Redes interorganizacionais. Revisão sistemática da literatura. 1 INTRODUÇÃO Cada vez mais, organizações de todos os setores da sociedade são desafiadas a romper os limites organizacionais e aumentar a interconectividade dos ativos interorganizacionais. As novas formas de organização em rede e a desintegração das cadeias de valor das empresas têm impactado profundamente em como as empresas se relacionam, abrindo espaço para cocriar soluções voltadas aos clientes, entrar em novos mercados e até mesmo e lidar com problemas sociais até então intratáveis (Hardy et al., 2005; Raab & Kenis, 2009). Os atores de uma rede podem coletivamente desenvolver soluções inovadoras para problemas que não podem ser resolvidos sozinhos unindo suas forças (Provan & Kenis, 2008).

Connecting content and structure: A review of mechanisms in entrepreneurs’ social networks

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Network studies in the entrepreneurship domain suffer from an incomplete theorization of how the content of social capital relates to network relationships and structures in which entrepreneurs are embedded or embed themselves. This study presents a systematic review of the various ways in which the interaction between content (e.g. cognition and resources) and social structure has been studied within entrepreneurship. Based on this review, we develop a more integrative account of the underlying action mechanisms that link the content and structure of social capital. These mechanisms cut across different research traditions and align areas of entrepreneurship research. In this way, we contribute an integrative review of prior work and a formative set of directions for further theorizing and research on social capital, networks and entrepreneurship.

Disruptions in Interorganizational Relationships: A Taxonomy and a Research Agenda

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Interorganizational relationships play a vital role in sustaining a firm's competitive advantage, but these relationships must continuously adapt to evolving conditions and unexpected circumstances. In this chapter, we synthesize a fragmented literature about interorganizational disruptions, which we organize around integrative taxonomy to help assess received wisdom and point directions for future research. We detail a research agenda to push the frontiers of the literature about processes value creation, managing internal and external stakeholders and critical contingencies.

Multi-level research into the social: An old wine in an old forgotten bottle?

Technical Report

Full-text available

Mar 2016

Stephen Harwood

This essay provides a cursory discussion on the issue of how to conceptualise social phenomena in terms of the multiple levels that characterise it. It recognises the nested nature of different levels and the challenges of integrating or aligning different levels, whether it be from a qualitative of a quantitative perspective. In response it is proposed that a complexity approach, whereby the complexity of a situation is unfolded to reveal multiple levels offers a useful approach for handling multi-level perspectives. In doing so, it draws upon an old model which has perhaps been in the main, forgotten: the Viable System Model (VSM) developed by Stafford Beer

Intra-Organizational Network Dynamics: Past Progress, Current Challenges, and New Frontiers

Article

May 2022

Social networks are dynamic by nature. While network research has tended to treat relationships between social actors as static, the past decades have seen a surge in literature that extends a dynamic lens to the study of intra-organizational networks. Critically, to date there is no comprehensive and systematic review of intra-organizational network dynamics studies. Moreover, the field lacks programmatic coherence, clear and consistent terminology, and methodological clarity. This review attempts to resolve these issues. To foster a common language, we start by providing an integrative definition and clarifying the scope of intra- organizational network dynamics. This allows us to distinguish four domains of dynamic network theorizing. Building on this, we develop an encompassing framework that maps the multiple facets of this literature and apply it to organize our summary and synthesis. We then take a bird’s-eye view of the full body of research and discuss four foundational areas in which network dynamics research can be conceptually and methodologically extended. We end by elaborating on the issue of interdependence in network data and providing an overview of the leading statistical approaches for modelling longitudinal network data.

Corporate entrepreneurs and collaborative innovation in crisis: The case of the Covid-19 ventilator shortage

Article

Nov 2021

This teaching case focuses on corporate entrepreneurship and collaborative innovation during an unprecedented crisis – the shortage in mechanical ventilators when the Covid-19 pandemic began. Based on secondary data sources, the case outlines the challenges of designing and manufacturing mechanical ventilators and introduces four initiatives, consisting of organisations with often limited experience in medical device manufacturing that attempted to address the predicted shortage of ventilators. By comparing the approaches used in these initiatives, the case sensitises students to the challenges of pursuing opportunities outside a firm's established domain of expertise and how inter-organisational collaboration affects such attempts. Although the case centres on an unprecedented event, the insights it develops make it suitable for a range of innovation and entrepreneurship-related under- and post-graduates courses.

Innovation networks for social impact: An empirical study on multi-actor collaboration in projects for smart cities

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2022
J BUS RES

Emilene Leite

This study investigates the factors that drive an innovation network formation comprising companies, government, and society, and the ways these actors contribute and collaborate within a network to develop technologies that have a social impact. A conceptual framework has been developed by combining literature-based arguments and insights from two cases of smart city innovation. This study demonstrates that the innovation network is driven by the activities of searching, acting, and convincing actors of an opportunity to develop smart city solutions. The findings also show that innovation networks emerge not solely from a business goal, but also from a social goal and can still generate business opportunities for companies. Therefore, innovation for smart cities specifically requires a new form of configuration (public–private and citizens’ participation), drivers (economic and social), and resources (technological and non-technological) in both its development and implementation. The analysis of the different configurations suggests more/less effective innovation.

Agency and the micro-foundation of network resilience: Insights from “Mafia Capitale” (2012-2015)

Conference Paper

Aug 2021

Studying the Management of Project Networks: From Structures to Practices?

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2021

Jörg Sydow

Although certainly of a much older (or even ancient) origin, during the last two decades or so project networks have become an established object of management and organization research in general and project management studies in particular. While projects are a common, if not the most common form of a temporary organization, project networks are typically conceived as being more than an only temporary form, combining – like other forms of project-based organizing – the temporary with the permanent in a specific manner. For in the case of project networks, the coordination of the temporary is enabled (but also restrained) by the more permanent networks of past relationships to other critical actors and their resources on the one hand. On the other, however, the prospects to maintain or re-activate these relationships for future collaborations have an influence on respective coordinative practices in the present. As a consequence of coordinating relationships in the shadow of the past as well as in the shadow of the future, project networks are strictly speaking of a semi-temporary rather than a merely temporary nature. While there is still some debate about how exactly to define and conceptualize this particular organizational form, project managers have always known that in many if not most settings, there is more to managing projects than managing just the temporary. Respective management tasks indeed even go beyond having an eye on the interface to the surrounding, immediate and more permanent structures of the organization, the inter¬organizational network and/or the organizational field and how they support or constrain temporary organizing.

Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Affiliations and Other Relational Assets

Book

Oct 2023

Ranjay Gulati

Today’s firms are increasingly embedded in networks of alliances and other ties that influence their behavior and performance. In this, his first book on the subject, Ranjay Gulati examines the ‘network resources’ that arise from these ties, how successful firms manage these, and how they influence strategy, access to material resources, and perceptions of a firm’s legitimacy held by key external parties such as investors and banks. The book synthesises Gulati’s influential work on network dynamics from the last fifteen years, and presents the key findings from this extensive body of research. Gulati’s insights are important for scholars, students, and practitioners interested in the behavior of firms in an increasingly networked economy. Ranjay Gulati is one of the leading theorists and researchers studying alliances and networks, and has written widely on the subject. His work has been published in leading academic journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, and in the Harvard Business Review.

Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances

Article

Feb 1995

Ranjay Gulati

Retrospective Reports In Organizational Research: A Reexamination Of Recent Evidence

Article

Feb 1997

Building Cooperation in a Competitive Industry: Sematech and the Semiconductor Industry

Article

Feb 1995

Around Glare: A New Aircraft Material in Context

Book

Jan 2002

Coen Vermeeren

During September 24-26, 2001, the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands organised the Glare - the New Material for Aircraft Conference, an international conference on the relationship between design, material choice and application of aircraft materials with respect to new developments in industry. Eminent representatives from the aircraft manufacturing world, including manufacturers, airlines, airports, universities, governments and aviation authorities, were present at this conference to meet and exchange ideas - see the group photo on the next two pages. The fact that the conference was held just two weeks after ‘September 11, 2001’ put things in a rather unique perspective. The aim of the conference was to illustrate the many unique applications of the Glare family of fibre metal laminates and to provide for the exchange and distribution of information regarding this material in order to stimulate their acceptance and promote further application. The introduction of fibre metal laminates into the commercial aviation market took about 20 years’ time. Introducing new technologies should not be taken lightly, however; the aircraft industry is by nature rather conservative and innovations must therefore be proven – a paradox actually – in all possible ways before they can be introduced in real aircraft structures. Not only do technical aspects play a role in this respect; historical, cultural, economical and political issues are equally important.

Glare: history of the development of a new aircraft material

Book

Jan 2001

Ad Vlot

Glare is the name given to a new material for aircraft structures developed at Delft University in the Netherlands. It consists of thin aluminium layers bonded together by adhesive containing embedded fibres and is very resistant to fatigue. This book gives the inside story of how the development of Glare took place. It took more than two decades from the first tests in Delft to the major breakthrough following the decision of Airbus to apply the material on the A380 super-jumbo. This success was achieved by a small group of people inspired by professor Boud Vogelesang, people who kept believing in the material and fought against all obstacles during the years. This book tells the story of the ups and downs and the final success of their efforts.

Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages

Article

Sep 2000
STRATEGIC MANAGE J

Wenpin Tsai

This paper investigates the evolutionary dynamics of network formation by analyzing how organizational units create new interunit linkages for resource exchange. Using sociometric techniques and event history analysis, this study predicts the rate at which new interunit linkages are created between a newly formed unit and all the existing units in a large multinational organization. Two important constructs: social capital, derived from the literature on social structure and network formation, and strategic relatedness, derived from research on diversification and the resource-based view of the firm, are used to explain the rate of new linkage creation. Results show that the interaction between social capital and strategic relatedness significantly affects the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

WHERE DO ALLIANCES COME FROM? THE EFFECTS OF UPPER ECHELONS ON ALLIANCE FORMATION.

Article

Aug 2005

Alliances with established organizations provide young firms with access to resources necessary for survival. Previous organizational research has focused on prior alliance activity as a driver of alliance formation. Yet, in the context of young firms which have limited track records, such explanations do not suffice. This paper proposes an alternative mechanism of alliance formation that focuses on the individuals that form the upper echelon of a firm. We theorize that the career affiliations of top managers facilitate the formation of alliances by acting as a signal of legitimacy, status, and substance. Utilizing a typology of upper echelon experience that distinguishes between upstream, horizontal, and downstream employment-based affiliations, we propose that the prominence of upper echelon affiliations signal a firm's quality and legitimacy, which in turn promotes alliance formation. We further unpeel this general proposition to examine the specific ways in which these signals transpire, suggesting that status dynamics and homophily tendencies determine the formation of prominent and specific types of alliances. We test our ideas with an event-history dataset of 3,200 career histories of top managers who took biotechnology firms public between 1979 and 1996, and find that firms possessing more upper echelon affiliations with prominent downstream and horizontal organizations have a higher rate of forming alliances. Further, we find that the better the match between the type of employment affiliation and the type of alliance partner, the greater the rate of alliance formation. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for organizational research on young entrepreneurial firms.

Networks and alliances

Article

Apr 1998
STRATEGIC MANAGE J

Ranjay Gulati

This paper introduces a social network perspective to the study of strategic alliances. It extends prior research, which has primarily considered alliances as dyadic exchanges and paid less attention to the fact that key precursors, processes, and outcomes associated with alliances can be defined and shaped in important ways by the social networks within which most firms are embedded. It identifies five key issues for the study of alliances: (1) the formation of alliances, (2) the choice of governance structure, (3) the dynamic evolution of alliances, (4) the performance of alliances, and (5) the performance consequences for firms entering alliances. For each of these issues, this paper outlines some of the current research and debates at the firm and dyad level and then discusses some of the new and important insights that result from introducing a network perspective. It highlights current network research on alliances and suggests an agenda for future research.© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Explaining development and change in organization

Article

Jan 1995

Contacts and Contracts: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Last Chance to Apply! 18 Assistant & Associate Professor positions at VU Amsterdam

See our 18 open Asst/Assoc. Professor positions at the science faculty of VU Amsterdam

Sister, shall I tell you?: Systemic Functional Linguistics perspectives

L'alternança datiu/acusatiu en la recció verbal catalana.

Genealogical Relationships and the Geographical Distribution of the Accents in Mainland Japan (1)

L’enseignement en arabe dialectal pour consolider l’acquisition de l’arabe standard-Abdellah Chekayr...