Networking in business. Development of network interactions in international business

1

The article discusses important issues related to the formation of network structures to improve the efficiency of integration processes in the field of science, education and business. Much attention is paid to establishing the essence of network structures, the concepts presented in the scientific literature are systematized, and the concept of “network structure” is clarified. This concept is considered comprehensively as a triad: integration, interaction and organization of institutions. Review given different approaches to the classification of network structures and principles of construction network forms irovaniya. The author's classification approach is also proposed, highlighting innovative, educational integration and infrastructure network structures that combine educational, scientific and industrial activities. Thus, the implementation of a mechanism for network interaction between scientific, educational and industrial structures can become the most effective way to solve the problems of achieving a balance in training specialists and meeting the needs of employers for qualified personnel that meet modern economic realities.

efficiency of integration processes

integration of education

science and business

network structures

networking

high-tech industries

classification of network structures

1. Aliev B.Kh. Industrial policy and economics. – M.: Economics, 2000. – 103 p.

2. Aliev B.Kh., Makhdieva Yu.M. Fundamentals of Insurance: Textbook. – M.: Publishing house “Unity-Dana”, 2014. – 503 p.

3. Aliev B.Kh., Makhdieva Yu.M. Insurance: a textbook for university students studying in the specialties “Finance and Credit”, “Accounting, Analysis and Audit”. – M.: Publishing house “Unity-Dana”, 2011. – 416 p.

4. Bogachev Yu.S., Oktyabrsky A.M., Rubvalyper D.A. Mechanisms for the development of an innovative economy in modern conditions// ENSR. – 2009. – No. 2 (45). – P. 63.

5. Knyazev E.A., Drantusova P.V. Networks in vocational education // University Management. – 2010. – No. 5. – P. 24–31.

6. Mögcher K., Rayala A. The growth of strategic networks - new models of value creation // Russian magazine management. – 2003. – T. 6, No. 4. – P. 113–140.

7. Tretyak O.A., Rumyantseva M.N. Network forms of inter-firm cooperation: approaches to explaining the phenomenon // Russian Journal of Management. – 2003. – T. 1, No. 2. – P. 25–50.

8. Sheresheva M.Yu. Forms of network interaction between companies. – M.: Publishing house. House of State University - Higher School of Economics, 2010. - 339 p.

9. Encyclopedic Dictionary. Modern market economy. State regulation of market processes / general. ed. V.I. Kushlina, V.P. Chichkanova. – M., 2004.

10. Hoggins R. The Success and Failure of Policy-Implantcd Iner-Firm Network Initiatives: Motivations, Processes and Structure If Entrepreneurship &Regional Development. – 2000. – No. 12.

11. Webser J. Networks of Collaboration or Conflict Electronic Data Interchange and Power in the Supply Chain The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. – 1995. – Vol. 4, No. 1. – P. 31–42.

The rapid development of knowledge-intensive industries, the accelerated introduction of scientific innovative developments into production, increasing employers' requirements for the quality of personnel training in terms of content and structure, and the processes of informatization of the economy place new demands on education, science and business. Under such conditions, they cannot effectively develop and adapt to changes in isolation, independently of each other. As noted by foreign and domestic researchers, in innovation economy the effectiveness of interaction between economic entities increases from the organization of integration processes within the network structure as the most advanced modification of adaptive structures for managing complex socio-economic systems.

As evidenced by the experience of their use, in different economic systems the main advantages of network structures include:

Adaptability to rapidly changing conditions and fast response to changes in market conditions;

Concentrating the activities of network participants on unique processes and their key competencies;

Significant reduction of costs and their optimal structure;

Elimination of duplication of a number of functions by network participants;

Joint activities with competent partners when implementing projects within the network;

Replication of best practices and an effective mechanism for exchanging information between its participants.

It should also be noted that the use of a network approach makes it possible to ensure the effective functioning of both each of its elements separately and the entire socio-economic system as a whole.

At the end of the 20th century. Abroad, the emphasis of economists has shifted from integration to the creation of economic innovation structures and network-type institutions. Network organizational forms have become widespread in various sectors of the economy.

Thus, the use of a network approach at the beginning of the 21st century. has become the dominant direction in the activities of leading Western universities. This was due to the following main reasons: increased dynamism external environment and the need for universities to quickly adapt to these changes; expansion of the international space of universities; increased international competition; low efficiency of generally accepted forms of cooperation in solving complex problems of international educational and scientific cooperation; the desire for a deeper and more effective division of labor; development of network computer technology and global communication networks.

During the transition of the Russian Federation to market economic conditions, changes in the domestic system of higher professional education also determined the need for the organization and development of network formations. However, the complexity of development modern system management of integration processes “science - education - production” based on network interaction at present is that in foreign and domestic literature devoted to the problems of development of interorganizational networks, there are many different approaches, concepts and views to the definition of the concept “network structure”. However, different authors use different definitions.

F. Webster defines a network structure as “a free flexible coalition, controlled from a single center, which undertakes such important functions as the formation and management of alliances, the coordination of financial resources and technologies, the definition of areas of competence and strategy, and also resolves relevant issues controls that tie the network together information resources» .

Thus, according to R. Huggins, a network structure should be understood as “a structure that contains two or more companies that pursue common goals or work to solve common problems, interacting over a long period of time.”

In the Encyclopedic Dictionary, network structure is understood as organizational type, which is characterized by a loosely connected, flexible, horizontally organized structure of a network of fundamentally equal, equal in their roles and functions, independent partners.

Russian researchers Yu.S. Bogachev, A.M. October. YES. Rubwalter give the following definition of a network structure: “The association of physical and legal entities operating in structures of various organizational and legal forms, coordinating their activities and sharing financial, material, technical, intellectual and other resources to solve specific problems in the development of the science and innovation sector in the field of high technology at the federal and regional levels."

It should be noted that the concept of “network structure” is presented quite widely in the scientific literature and is considered from the perspective of various scientific directions that complement each other. Most authors consider network structures from the following positions:

The network as a way of interaction between organizations that are legally independent, but economically dependent horizontally and vertically;

Network as a way to unite organizations through a system of horizontal and vertical cooperation agreements, contracts,

The network as an institution that determines the rules for integration and interaction of organizations of economic entities.

It should be noted here that the authors do not clearly reveal the connection between integration, interaction and institutions, which should be considered as successive stages in the process of forming network structures and their functioning. At the initial stage, interaction between structures can be short-term in nature and can be aimed at solving specific problems; at the next stage, connections become more stable and long-term on the basis of cooperation and coordination of the activities of organizations; the typology of connections becomes more complex, built on the basis of the integration of the goals and resources of network participants. And finally, at the third stage, the formation of integration education as an institution provides for the norms of intra-network coordination of the activities of network participants.

So, network structures are a set of homogeneous and heterogeneous independent business entities connected by certain integration relations for the maximum effective use their resource potential, guided by common long-term goals and acting according to unified agreed norms and rules in conditions of situational leadership and direct communication channels.

The essence of network structures J. Lipnek and J. Stamps propose to characterize by five key organizational principles. Their content was later clarified by other Russian and foreign researchers. The main principles include:

The presence of a common long-term goal that cannot be fully achieved outside of network interaction by each individual participant;

Voluntariness of connections, ensuring flexibility and openness in the network structure;

Independence of partners who have the opportunity to realize their own goals and objectives of the organization, receiving certain benefits as a result of inclusion in the integration process, but at the same time must bear responsibility for achieving the ultimate goal of the network structure. There is interdependence between partners within the network; legally autonomous units are in fact closely connected, “linked” to each other and constantly influence each other;

Plurality of leaders who ensure the stability and elasticity of the network;

Multiple levels of interaction, since each participant in the network structure can interact directly with any partner included in this network formation.

In addition, we consider it necessary to take into account another principle when forming a network structure - the existence of a partnership agreement that confirms the consistency of goals and activities for the long term and reflects the order of interaction of its participants.

The principles considered are the basis for classifying network formations and identifying their various types.

The first classification of network structures, which is now recognized as classical, was proposed by R. Miles and C. Snow. They identified three types of networks: internal, stable, dynamic - and described the functioning mechanism of each of them. From their point of view, an intranet is a combination of resources and business units within one company; A stable network is a type of network organization that connects the specialized resources of partners, and a dynamic network arises when many organizations operate in the same value chain and unite to perform a specific task, the implementation of a project.

A different approach was proposed by H. Hinterhuber and B. Levin, where when classifying they proceed from the fact that network organizations can be viewed from two points of view: intra-organizational, where the network is a collection of individuals and units within the same legally defined boundaries, and interorganizational, in which the network is a coalition of independent economic entities. The authors take the structure of networks as a criterion for classification and distinguish between internal and external networks. In turn, the authors divide external networks into three categories: horizontal, vertical and diagonal.

A significant contribution to the development of the theory of network formations was made by sociologist M. Castells. One of the areas of his research was global processes occurring in modern world influenced by development information technology. M. Castells and de May proposed a classification in which they identified five types of networks, combined into two categories. They included quasi-integrated networks in the first category - predominantly horizontal, based on strengthening market power by pooling the complementary resources of a limited number of participating organizations. In the second category they identified demand-driven networks, which are:

1) vertical networks of suppliers and manufacturers;

2) networks to create a comprehensive solution;

3) technological networks, which include R&D networks created to reduce risks and costs when creating new products, and standardization networks in the form of horizontal and diagonal partnerships.

Of great interest is the classification proposed by K. Möller and A. Rajala, which distinguishes three types of business networks. First, stable networks with an established value creation system, well-known competencies of participants and clearly defined business processes. Secondly, updated networks, which also have a fairly stable value creation system, but network participants have the opportunity to make changes to it, improving it. Thirdly, “emerging” networks in which new technologies, solutions, concepts, and business areas are created through system-wide innovation. These include K. Möller and A. Rajala: innovation networks, which are research networks in the field of science and high technology, uniting universities, research institutes, and R&D departments of large corporations.

Today, economic literature considers only separate forms of network interaction in the “education - science - production” system. When considering the use of a network approach in the higher education system to strengthen the integration of science, education and production, it is necessary to supplement the classification of network structures with such a criterion as the target sign of network formation, which is associated with the main direction of its activities. One of the most promising and relevant areas for increasing the competitiveness of universities and network structures is their specialization in key activities where they already have noticeable superiority, or they have the potential to maintain such superiority. In this regard, educational, infrastructural, innovative and integration scientific-educational-production network structures should be distinguished.

An educational network structure unites organizations that have stable connections and jointly implement various educational programs. The advantages of educational networks are: opening new educational programs; improving the quality of personnel training; organization of continuing education programs taking into account multi-level training, as well as increasing the mobility of students and teachers. Transition to this network model management is determined, firstly, by the integration of universities into a single global educational space, and secondly, by the increased importance of effective interaction between universities and academic institutions and structures real sector economy. Currently, interuniversity networking is carried out through unions, associations, consortia and other forms of network structures, the purpose of which is to improve communications between universities and intensify the processes of scientific and academic exchange. All this allows us to ensure entry into a single educational space, as well as focus on training qualified specialists in demand in the labor market.

The formation of innovative structures contributes to the positioning of universities as competitive full-fledged subjects of innovation and scientific and technical policy, as well as the definition of a network of universities as “pivot points of innovative development.” The advantages of innovation network structures are that they are the basis for R&D and help accelerate the “science - implementation - production” cycle.

Infrastructure network structures contribute to the creation of a complex necessary conditions ensuring the achievement of maximum results by all subjects of the national innovation system. Currently, the formation of such networks is underway, which include: a network of forecasting centers, information networks, a network of centers for the collective use of unique equipment, etc.

An integrated scientific-educational-production network structure is a mixed network structure. Participants in such networks can be individual organizations and their structural divisions, whose activities consist of training personnel for the implementation of innovative developments and the development of high-tech production in conducting joint R&D. This type networks are mainly aimed at transforming social capital into economic capital.

So, network structures must be considered as new organizational forms of integration and interaction of participants in research, educational and production activities, economically independent contracts, coordination of their activities and attraction of new partners, as well as institutions that determine the conditions for integration and interaction of economic entities that share a homogeneous system of values.

The implementation of a mechanism for network interaction between scientific, educational and industrial structures can become the most effective way to solve the problems of achieving a balance in training specialists and meeting the needs of employers for qualified personnel that meet modern economic realities. It is precisely such network structures, their accelerated formation and development, that will help accelerate the pace of modernization of the state’s economy.

Bibliographic link

Sultanov G.S., Aliev B.Kh., Mazanaev R.I., Dzhabrailov Sh.I. NETWORK INTERACTION AS A KEY FACTOR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND BUSINESS // Basic Research. – 2016. – No. 9-1. – P. 198-202;
URL: http://fundamental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=40721 (access date: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

Current page: 2 (book has 23 pages total) [available reading passage: 5 pages]

Theories strategic management

Let us now turn to another block of theories that cannot be ignored when talking about the study of interorganizational networks—the theories of strategic management.

As with organization theory, there is no single, holistic theory of strategic management. We are talking about a set of different concepts and schools (in particular, there are ten “schools of strategies” according to G. Mintzberg) in an interdisciplinary field of research. Nevertheless, this is precisely a theory that has its own subject, which consists in elucidating nature and mechanisms of creation competitive advantages organizations that provide them with the appropriation of economic benefits that are not available to their rivals. Then the study of the interorganizational network as a coordination mechanism can be considered as one of the important blocks within the framework of this theory. IN recent years this is being confirmed more and more clearly. Formed network concept of strategic management, which, along with the concepts strategies as revolutions(G. Hamel, K.K. Prahalad) , "disruptive technologies"(K. Christensen) and dynamic abilities(D. Thies, G. Pisano, E. Shuen), should be recognized as one of the main directions in the development of the modern paradigm of the theory of strategic management.

All these directions are based on the original concepts, definitions and methodologies laid down in the early 60s of the last century in the works of A. Chandler, K. Andrews and I. Ansoff. A. Chandler formulated the now classic understanding of strategy as “establishing the main long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise and developing a program of action and allocation of resources necessary to achieve these goals.” K. Andrews put forward the idea that economic strategy is a correspondence between the characteristics of a company (its strengths and weaknesses) and market opportunities, thanks to which it successfully adapts to the external environment. I. Ansoff created a school of planning, which has stood the test of time to a lesser extent, but many of his ideas in a transformed form also “work” for the development of the theory to this day.

For our course, the current stage of development of the theory of strategic management is interesting, and in this lecture we will talk about network concept of strategic management, the remaining stages and concepts, from the 60s to the present day, are described in some detail in the monograph by V. Katkalo “The Evolution of the Theory of Strategic Management.” In the same monograph we find a section that examines the network concept in management and draws attention to the fact that “historically, inter-organizational formations are not new for practitioners and theorists of effective economic forms” [Katkalo, 2006].

Of course, enterprise networks cannot be considered a new phenomenon: as is well known, already in the Middle Ages there were different forms of interaction between economic agents. In Europe of the 18th century, for example, the role of the “merchant-coordinator” was noticeable, organizing, according to F. Braudel’s apt definition, “dispersed production.” (Some modern researchers recall “larger” and earlier formations, such as the Hanseatic League of Cities or even a union of 20 city-states Ancient Greece to fight Persia.) Under certain assumptions, we can say that the network principle of interaction accompanies relations in human society from the very first stages of its emergence.

Issues of cooperation in one form or another were studied both in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century. Nevertheless, the wave of interest among strategic management specialists in the problems of network interaction, as in organizational sciences, began to grow only in recent decades, as changes in global markets increased. On the one hand, stable and long-term associations with two or more participants have ceased to be “extravagant” management decision" On the other hand, the very survival of organizations in rapidly changing markets has become increasingly dependent on flexibility and adaptability, which has prompted experimentation large companies to create “flat” intra-company structures, as well as initiatives by organizations of various sizes to create sustainable coalitions that expand resource capabilities while maintaining flexibility.

Let us deviate briefly from the main subject of our discussion and say a few words about theoretical works on issues intra-company network structures, which will not be discussed further in our course.

The analysis of intra-company networks was, in fact, one of the directions for studying the evolution of organizations, or more precisely, the trends in the decentralization of large companies. One of the first works in this direction was an article by J. Forrester published in 1965, in which he predicted the construction of organizations around “profit centers”, reminiscent of external business units in their interaction based on “market” prices. In the context of our topic, questions concerning the so-called matrix structures, first raised in the 60s of the last century, are also interesting. Thus, in his work, Schall quite clearly described the organizational structure of the “matrix organization,” which was unusual for that time, and showed what its relative advantages are and under what conditions it is most in demand. He defined the essence of the matrix concept, which implies the organization of the work of departments according to the project principle. A mixed, functional-matrix approach in his understanding means that, along with functional units, projects begin to play an important role in the organization - teams are built around them, the successes or failures of specific projects significantly influence the organization’s performance. The role of functional units in such an organization is reduced to supplying participants for these projects. The advantages of such an organization are personalized responsibility for results, rapid dissemination of knowledge within the company, increased motivation for employee development, and increased flexibility in the use of resources. The matrix structure is most suitable, first of all, when the scale and complexity of the task are very large (it is no coincidence that the matrix structure was first introduced by NASA to solve the problem of landing a man on the Moon). If solving a given problem is impossible without comprehensive coordination of various functions, a project structure is extremely useful, sometimes even necessary. A classic example is the introduction of a new product to the market. In addition, the matrix structure is good for solving non-trivial problems when it is necessary to use all the resources available in the organization and, possibly, combine them in completely unexpected ways. At the same time, structures of this kind, as well shown in the famous book by Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, “In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Most Successful Campaigns” [Peters, Waterman, 2005], have their limitations. The authors show that matrix structures have been successfully used by companies such as Hewlett Packard, IBM, 3M, but they draw attention to two very important points. First, the matrix structure only works if it is very clearly designed and free of excessive formalism. Secondly, the main condition for success in using such a structure is the unique cultural climate inherent in the company, characterized by such features as a fanatical commitment to quality, encouragement of initiative, and the enormous role of informal communications. As a rule, the formation of such a climate is the merit of the founder or leader of the organization. In a company that has failed to create such a favorable internal climate, the introduction of elements of a matrix structure does not increase either efficiency or flexibility, but only leads to the complication and confusion of the organizational structure.

As for interorganizational relations, as we have already said, the interest of specialists in the field of strategic management in them sharply increased only when they began to occupy an important place in the strategies of organizations, acquiring a new quality. Since the Second World War, the hallmark of most industrial markets has been the rapid development of mass consumption of standardized products, so considerations related to production characteristics (in terms of production costs and optimization of resource use) have come to the fore in determining development strategies for economic agents. The main emphasis in company strategies was placed on autonomous growth, which is in good agreement with the considerations of R. Coase and his followers about the advantages of a hierarchical form of coordination. In the activities of enterprises of this period (40-60s of the last century), production and sales were clearly separated, with the dominant importance of production considerations.

However, already in the 60s, this logic of development began to reveal its limitations, although initially this concerned only a small number of “developed” national markets. With the growth in the number of companies and the variety of products they offer, diversification of supply began to occupy an increasingly important place in the system of strategic priorities as a way to attract consumers who have changed their behavior and are placing increasingly stringent demands on product characteristics. This period includes increased attention to management strategies based on the idea of ​​synchronizing purchasing, production and sales activities within the company as an economic unit. Synchronization was implemented based on forecast planning and performance assessment, taking into account the magnitude of costs. This approach was consistent with the desire to reduce elements of spontaneity in intercompany relationships and establish long-term cooperative ties that allow participants in interaction to expand the forecasting horizon.

As a result, in 1972 Richardson already had every reason to write about the existence in the world economy of “a dense network of cooperation…. with the help of which firms are connected with each other”, about the formation of a unique continuum of structures for managing inter-firm interactions, defined as “complex and interconnected clusters, groups and alliances in which cooperation is fully and formalized.” Catalysts for the rapid development of network structures were such new features of industry markets as increased competition and its movement to the global level, the complication of production and commercial activities companies, high uncertainty in their external environment, the emergence of the role of information as an important resource, an increase in the importance of the time factor, an increase in the number of products and services offered while simultaneously reducing life cycles and increasing rates of innovation. Coupled with technological changes, this significantly changed the relationship between the levels of transaction costs that arise when implementing different forms of coordination and “brought the network mode of interaction out of the shadows.”

We can say that an explosion of pioneering works that examined this issue occurred in the first half of the 80s. In the works of such authors as K. Imai, H. Itami, R. Miles, G. Torelli, C. Snow and a number of others, the patterns of development and the main characteristics of network intercompany structures in the context of business strategies were first discussed. In March 1986, Business Week magazine devoted its issue to the “hollow corporation,” after which interest in corporate networks exploded. By the beginning of the 1990s, writes V. Katkalo, a bibliography of special works on general issues network structures and their varieties has become very extensive, and the topic of research has become fashionable. At the same time, scientists from IMEMO RAS were the first in Russia to show interest in “entrepreneurial networks.” An article by A. Sterlin and A. Ardishvili, published in the journal MEiMO in 1991, became the first Russian publication on network interaction.

The stream of work on networks published over the past 30 years has been highly fragmented, consistent with the interdisciplinary nature and complexity of the subject itself. There have been repeated attempts to classify this stream of publications. A well-known proposal by R. Osborne and J. Hagedorn to group works on networks published in the 80-90s of the 20th century into three main types, for which questions are given priority, respectively economic theory, corporate strategy and interorganizational relations. Osborne and Hagedorn emphasized that these three types interacted little with each other at the time of publication of the work (1997). V. Katkalo offers a different classification of scientific literature, talking about blocks devoted to non-economic interpretations of network organization, network structure as a new organizational form and network approach in marketing. We already discussed the non-economic direction in the first part of our lecture, when we talked about work in the field of sociology, anthropology, and psychology. We will describe the other two directions in the final part of the lecture.

Network structure as an organizational form. Founders this approach recognized by R. Miles and C. Snow, who by the early 1990s conceptualized network structures as a strategic organizational decision. Having studied a significant number of cases and taking the idea of ​​“compliance” as a basis organizational form conditions of a specific external environment, they proposed to consider inter-firm networks a new stage in the evolution organizational structures: linear – functional – divisional – matrix – network. They considered the main feature of the network structure to be that the place of its origin is global turbulent markets, and the functioning mechanism was seen in the aggregation by a broker firm of temporary structures that involve the exchange of information between participants as the basis of trust and coordination. A common feature of network structures according to Miles and Snow is also the use of collective assets of several economic agents located at different stages of the value chain - in contrast to the “traditional” situation, when all the assets necessary to create a product are concentrated within one organization or an exclusive contract . In resource management, market mechanisms predominate, and network participants are distinguished by proactive behavior in order to improve a product or service, i.e., they do not just fulfill contractual obligations, but are ready for additional “investments” in the joint result.

R. Miles and C. Snow also created the first clear classification of network forms, which is recognized by many as classical, and showed that network structures in general and each of the types of network structures they identified, in particular, have comparative advantages and disadvantages, which makes them preferable only for specific conditions and certain industries.

Relationship marketing (network approach to marketing). The formation of a network approach to marketing began in the mid-1970s by a group of scientists from Europe who founded the international community IMP Group (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group). This influential group of scientists and educators is now one of the world's most developed research communities studying networking.

Since its formation, the IMP group has promoted the role of relationships in explaining organizational behavior. The team's first work was a large-scale study of relationships in industrial supply chains in Europe. Subsequently, representatives of the IMP Group, in a number of works, explored the nature of intercompany relationships, including relationships in company networks. Researchers have questioned traditional views in marketing, shifting the main focus from operational components (individual functions) marketing activities one company to build a client-oriented management model. This marked the beginning of a new research platform relationship marketing. The concept focused on supplier management strategies, intra-company marketing, diverse relationships in distribution channels, direct forms and methods of communication with the end consumer in all (and not just consumer) markets.

It is in the field of relationship marketing that the interests of the majority of Russian researchers lie, specifically dealing with issues of network interaction between organizations. Such research is most intensively conducted at the Graduate School of Management of St. Petersburg state university(Department of Marketing) and at the Faculty of Management of the State University Higher School of Economics (Department of Strategic Marketing). In 2006, the Excellence Network project “Development of forms of inter-company cooperation: networks and relationships” was initiated - a cooperative association aimed at expanding and improving Russian studies in the area of ​​networks and partnerships. Now this network unites about 100 researchers from Russian and foreign universities and has a significant impact on research network interactions in Russia, uniting disparate research and educational initiatives around general program and creating a common platform for their joint discussion with the participation of the scientific community and business. Let us note that it was scientists representing the direction of relationship marketing who prepared the most thorough Russian-language publication, which provides a detailed analysis of the contribution of various scientific directions to the understanding of network inter-firm cooperation, its advantages and disadvantages [Tretyak, Rumyantseva, 2003]. The authors of the article analyzed the dynamics and formation of the network interaction paradigm and proposed a classification of theories that made the most significant contribution to the development of networks (Appendix 1.2).

Despite the differences between the approaches that we talked about in this lecture, it is hardly advisable to oppose them to each other. Rather, we can talk about a clearly expressed tendency towards their mutual penetration and enrichment. For example, the main difference between the economic-theoretical and “managerial” approaches is usually considered to be the fact that the interests of management specialists are reduced to a more detailed description of the phenomenon of network organization from the perspective of changing processes, structures, boundaries, and new management rules. It’s yourself that’s important here. principle network interaction, be it managing an intra-company network, a franchise network or a virtual organization. The economic-theoretical approach focuses on the comparative efficiency and effectiveness of different methods of coordination, competitive advantages and rents extracted by the parties. In economic theory, such issues as the correlation between the categories of integration and disintegration, the identification of “pure” types of networks and their “borderline” types, the possibility of comparing various alternatives in terms of costs, etc., are of significant importance. But when comparing any approach, many intersections are revealed. Thus, relationship marketing theorists H. Hokanson, J. Johanson, M. Forsgren and others, when analyzing industrial networks, rely on the sociological definition of networks and analyze alternative management structures, comparing them from the point of view of external and internal forces(in the sense of norms and interests). Let's give another example. IN strategic management There is a well-known definition by Jones-Histerly, which speaks of a network mode of management or a network mode of organization as a manifestation of “inter-firm coordination characterized by informal social systems, compared with bureaucratic structures within firms and formal contractual relationships between them.” It is easy to see that this definition also echoes both the “non-economic” approach and the approach of O. Williamson described above. In turn, representatives of economic sociology in recent years have integrated into their theoretical apparatus many developments from economic and managerial approaches that are “external” to them.

This is no coincidence. The study of network interaction between companies is an area where the interdisciplinary nature of research is especially important, involving the exchange of opinions and mutual enrichment. This helps to highlight the most common features and problems, as well as to develop consensus on the issues that the network method of organization poses, but still does not eliminate the need for everyone to choose the theoretical platform that will be taken as a basis. The same applies to any definitions, classifications, assessments, as well as the basic premises underlying this or that empirical research.

In the context of the transition of the world economy to post-industrial development, the process of formation of a network structure is accelerating, when rigid hierarchical structures are everywhere being replaced by flexible network ones, and economic systems are gradually acquiring a cluster structure instead of the traditional sectoral one. Dynamic network interactions are seen as a necessary institutional environment for an innovative type of growth based on continuous renewal.

The main feature of the modern information society based on digital technologies, noted M. Castells, is not so much the dominance of information as such, but the network logic of its use. By this circumstance, he emphasized the organic connection between the new technological paradigm and the formation of a network structure, when the organization of the economy and society is based on network information flows, network structures and network interactions.

In accordance with his vision, the modern economy spontaneously transforms into a network system and thereby becomes a “continuously flowing space of flows”, acquiring the ability of continuous renewal. Thus, in the most developed countries, technological structures that are based on the widespread use of network information technologies, advanced computer technology and telecommunications dominate. Currently, the information paradigm determines the network nature of all institutions of the “new economy”. Institutionally, the increasing complexity of the structure of systems is associated with the emergence of a new way of coordinating connections and harmonizing interests.

Signs of the emergence of a network structure began to appear already in the 1990s, in particular, in the form of increasing turbulence. One of the first works on this topic, published by K. Kelly under the title “New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Interconnected Principles for Survival in a Turbulent World,” argued that every business will eventually submit to the logic and economics of networks.

Historically and logically, the formation of a network structure of international business is based on the complex dialectical unity of two processes. On the one hand, with the development of productive forces, the connections between various types labor, areas of activity, etc. On the other hand, there is a division of labor, specialization deepens, new areas appear and are isolated economic activity, industries, sub-sectors, etc. These two processes are organically interconnected and complement each other. Each of them, in turn, is a complex process occurring at different levels of the economic system: micro-, macro-, meso- and megalevels.

According to foreign researchers, economic contacts between subjects entrepreneurial activity carried out interactively via direct communication through websites. Emerging information (network platforms) of Internet companies are replacing traditional resellers and speeding up the exchange of information during a commercial transaction. A new (direct) level of cooperation between producer and consumer makes it possible to achieve the realization of the economic interests of both parties through the creation of an online economic environment and the development of diverse connections in the global economic network. Moreover, the post-industrial system of economic relations, in contrast to the industrial economy, makes it possible to accelerate and achieve continuity in updating the species composition of created goods and the effects of diversity ( economy of scope), which was previously constrained by mass production of similar products and economies of scale ( economy of scale). Under these conditions, hierarchical management structures are being replaced by self-governing network systems built on horizontal connections and continuous coordination. In modern economic literature and practice, such interactive network interactions are called collaboration.

Nowadays, the processes of displacement of hierarchies by network structures are already becoming widespread and irreversible, revealing themselves at all levels economic ties. During the global crisis, a powerful impetus for development is formed and received new company model, new market model, new management model national economy and a new system of world order*. So, since the 2000s. have become increasingly widespread around the world multilocal network companies, built not on centralized control, like a classic multinational corporation, but on the collaboration of many independent organizations and civilians, including consumers, suppliers, partners and direct competitors. This decentralized business model dramatically reduces production and transaction costs, as the risks, rewards, competencies and resources associated with the implementation of new projects are distributed across a global network of counterparties.

The process of clustering has become widespread in modern conditions, making it possible to structure the relationships of all subsystems in the global market space, occupying an intermediate position between the market and the hierarchy. As a hybrid design, clusters have open boundaries to attract new participants, a flexible internal structure and the ability to quickly reconfigure, and they are well integrated - around a joint project idea and coordinating network platforms.

According to American analysts, global trend The growing number, economic power and political influence of cross-border networks of all types became clear in 2016, and by 2025 the world will change beyond recognition. The shift in the influence of sovereigns goes in three directions: outward - to extra-sovereign players (informal networks of government officials, international business communities, NGO alliances), down - to local levels (to intrastate regions) and upward - to the level international organizations and transboundary macroregions.

Today it is becoming an objective reality that the post-industrial globalized world is not just multipolar, but multidimensional network space, where relations of hegemony and habitual subordination are absent. In this hyper-dynamic environment, new structure-forming links are emerging: transnational network alliances- instead of sovereign states and trans-industry cluster networks- instead of industrial sectors. Further clustering of the world economy will lead to the formation of even more powerful network systems operating across the borders of countries and territories, which will eventually deformalize the political world order: instead of regions as administrative entities, regional network communities will emerge, united by a common project idea.

Scientific ideas about modern clusters have developed under the influence of several directions of economic thought and vary greatly. The most accurate interpretation can be obtained from works related to the school of M. Porter. Moreover, here we should rely not so much on the concept production clusters(industrial clusters), introduced by Porter in 1990 as an element of the “diamond model”, as well as his later research, starting in 1998. Based on the innovation effects observed in Silicon Valley, Porter proposes to consider clusters in three dimensions.

Firstly, how spatially localized structures, having a territorial scope that can vary from one region or city to a country or even several neighboring countries.

Secondly, how a non-hierarchical network of individuals, firms and related organizations from various institutional sectors (research centers, government agencies, other institutions). All these players are grouped in a certain area business activity and are linked to each other through various economic and knowledge channels. Porter emphasizes that successful clusters are not hierarchical structures, but rather “matrices of fluid and overlapping relationships” between participants.

Third, Porter analyzes clusters as area of ​​special business environment, where players operate on the principles of commonality and complementarities so that their partnership proximity “increases the frequency and significance of their interactions along the lines of both cooperation and competition.”

Initially, Porter's theory did not reveal either the mechanism of their formation or their organizational structure. Therefore, in the 1990s. the concept of “cluster” was considered mainly as a narrow analytical construct (one of the four facets of the “diamond”), and the emergence of cluster networks was considered as a result of the natural evolution of the market space, not associated, according to Porter’s views, with any purposeful efforts by the authorities.

At the same time, in the 2000s. leaders of various countries and territories isolated the cluster idea from the “diamond model” and transformed it into a multifunctional instrument of practical policy, considering clusters as object of purposeful creation- both on the part of market participants (promotion of cluster initiatives) and on the part of the state (cluster policy and the formation of cluster programs). They began to put forward strategic projects to create world-class clusters (especially in emerging sectors), trying to reproduce the design of successful growth poles such as Silicon Valley.

The most applicable in world practice are two large types of clusters - special industrial agglomerations and special network ecosystems. Processes of globalization of the world economy in the last quarter of the 20th century. created conditions for the formation of global companies and for the replacement of local self-sufficient ones production networks global value chains that horizontally cross sectors and countries, ensuring the growing diversification of world production.

As a result, the creation of local production network nodes in various territories, which are clusters with a significant advantage - the deepening of the international division of labor. The organizational design of clusters is, as a rule, groups of companies in several industries, which, thanks to network openness, rely on a dynamic combination of local and global resource flows, which ensures glocalization of resource circulation. Circulating flows of financial and physical capital have global mobility, flows of social capital are tied to the landscape of the territory (the formation of network connections largely depends on the specifics of the local business climate), and flows of human capital have mixed mobility. Cluster networks in the innovation economy have the form shown in Fig. 5.2.

Rice. 5.2.

The specificity of resource circulation makes clusters a unique mechanism that localizes globalized production at the level of individual territories and thereby gives it the necessary orderliness, forming a modern model of stratification of economic systems.

Compared to the industry model, it provides a finer diversification of production, generating distribution highly specialized regions(spatial diversification), where are located highly specialized sectors(structural diversification based on groups of related industries).

The formation of clusters that flexibly respond to changes in market needs allows regional economies to consistently deepen specialization, focusing on new and increasingly sophisticated types of activities (a process called sophistication). Such economies quickly develop unique, one-of-a-kind production competencies and acquire unique comparative advantages (in terms of quality, cost, or special properties of the product being created), which fundamentally increases their investment attractiveness. As a result, the territories where clusters appear successfully attract global investors, which helps them penetrate global networks and fit into the situation of global competition.

At the same time, clusters play a critical role in improving the competitive positions of investors themselves coming to the region. International companies, who today outsource the vast majority of their operations, receive sustainable competitive benefits from the fact that they can flexibly combine the geography of production factors. By placing resources and business functions in specialized clusters throughout the world, these players try to select for each functional task exactly the cluster where it is solved most effectively. Moreover, the international competitiveness of companies now depends not so much on their individual comparative advantages or on the advantages of their country of origin, but on in which specific regional cluster of the world do these companies locate their facilities? Moreover, in order to enter the cluster and take advantage of its dynamic network environment, leading multi- and transnational corporations are transforming into mobile multi-local companies, consisting of many functionally interconnected, but legally independent firms of various sizes.

Modern clusters are considered the most favorable structure for generating interactive innovations based on collective action precisely because they cover a wide network of independent agents of various profiles (industrial, functional and institutional), which mutually support each other during collaboration. The innovative nature of modern clusters is determined not by their advanced specialization, but by their unique institutional design. Based on the spiral model, it makes a striking contrast with the structure of other types of territorial production agglomerations (Fig. 5.3).

An example is the Italian “industrial districts” (200 agglomerations of small and medium-sized firms), which have been producing since the 1970s. the lion's share Italian exports. Another example is the Japanese financial and industrial groups “keiretsu”, which managed in the 1970-1980s. bypass vertical American holdings in the world markets of automobiles and electronics. Although such agglomerations with broad support for small and medium business Often referred to in the literature as industrial or industrial clusters, they are very different from innovation ecosystems that use collaboration mechanisms.

Rice. 5.3. Evolution of industrial agglomeration design: achieving synergy 2

Full-fledged clusters designed for an innovative type of growth receive an impetus for development only in the post-industrial era. Their competitive advantages are associated not only and not so much with the territorial proximity of the participants, but with their functional interdependence and complementarity.

Thus, in the Scandinavian countries, only those associations where a triple helix has developed are considered innovative, and they can be formed both in the newest sectors (for example, the life sciences sector) and in traditional ones (for example forest industry). Silicon Valley in the USA is spontaneously developing on this principle, and the transnational biotechnological cluster ScanBalt BioRegion in Northern Europe has been successfully built on it using a software version, with both megaclusters organized as extensive networks of networks.

The success of Silicon Valley was ensured by the activities of several network platforms that promoted its development, implementing the principle of the triple helix. Multilateral partnership of universities, companies, inventors, individual entrepreneurs and other organizations made the valley a world center, first for engineering science, then for microelectronics, semiconductors, computers and, finally, ICT. Today, a powerful innovation ecosystem has formed here, self-governing through network associations of various players. It successfully attracts innovators from around the world (in 2010, 30% of startups were founded by immigrants) and is the epicenter of numerous venture projects (40% of US venture capital investments). By the beginning of the current decade, in the leading countries of the world, clustering covered about half of the economy, and more than 100 countries and regions of the world had one or another version of cluster policy based on Porter’s concept.

Russia joined this hundred in June 2012, forming a List of pilot programs for the development of innovative territorial clusters, which, based on the results of a competitive selection, included 25 cluster projects with high scientific and technical potential (most of them are being implemented in territories that already have special benefits - in science cities, closed administrative territories, special economic zones). Although Russian government intends to support these regional projects with considerable budget funds, the prospects for the formation of dynamic innovation clusters in the country are quite weak. In Russian conditions, the problem is not only that the selected clusters are actually created by decision “from above”, i.e. their models and specializations have not been previously “market tested,” as Porter’s school insists. What’s worse is that the organizational structure of the clusters is “tied” to the industrial type of growth, i.e. at best, production-type protoclusters may appear in the country, despite the proclaimed innovativeness of the structures being created.

Thus, the realities of post-industrial society are such that the state can no longer cope alone with managing complex systems operating online, which raises the question of maximum socialization of the management system in the form of “pluralism of functions, rather than one political power” or, according to Drucker, the transition of nations to “pluralism autonomous organizations knowledge-based."

Porter also speaks about the same functional pluralism, noting that modern model management "does economic development the result of a collaboration process in which different levels authorities, private companies, educational and scientific institutions, public organizations» .

The pioneers of post-industrial transit, who managed to advance further than others along the path of forming a network economy and a network society, are Scandinavian countries. Their technological breakthrough and advanced competitive positions in a number of new production areas are ensured primarily by the fact that they have become world leaders in terms of socialization of management, development of national innovation systems and the degree of informatization of society. In the network maturity rating, along with the absolute world leadership of Sweden, three other Scandinavian countries (Finland, Denmark and Norway) entered the top seven in 2012, ahead of even the United States.

The formation of a network structure is not only a challenge, but also an opportunity. The global spread of network structures allows economic systems to develop in leaps and bounds, due to internal reconfiguration, which opens up opportunities for lagging economies an objective historical chance for an innovative breakthrough- even with an unfinished industrial base and incomplete market transformation.

• Castells M. Information era: economics, society and culture. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2000.
• Muravyov V.A. Information in international business: author's abstract. dis.... cand. economics.sciences. M., 2003.
• Kelly K. New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Dependable Principles for Thriving in a Turbulent World // Wired. 1997. No. 5.
• Smorodinskaya N.V. Changing the paradigm of world development and the formation of a network economy // Economic Sociology. T. 13. No. 4. URL: www.ecsoc.hse.ru
• Katukov D.D., Malygin V.E., Smorodinskaya N.V. Institutional environment of a globalizing economy: development of network interactions. M.: Institute of Economics RAS, 2012. P. 8.

On modern stage development, the competitiveness of the region is one of the key factors of its economic growth and sustainability. To strengthen its position in the national and global arena, the concept of developing network structures is becoming more and more widespread in developed countries and gradually in Russia. These associations are becoming an alternative to such traditional hierarchical types of associations as holdings, groups, corporations, etc.

There is no generally accepted definition of a network structure; its conceptual and terminological apparatus is in its infancy. The boundaries of understanding this term are determined individually depending on the goals and objectives of the study.

The following approaches to determining the essence of the network structure are distinguished:

As a way to coordinate the activities of vertically and horizontally integrated participants who have independent legal status, but the economic situation dependent on the state of the general structure;

As a means of forming complex cooperative relationships between companies that provide high degree coordination of their functioning processes;

As an institution that implements the concept of optimal interaction of equal in their roles and functions, but potentially independent in financially partners

Attempts to comprehend the phenomenon of network interaction have led to the appearance in the scientific literature of other terms, the content and definition of which in a number of research work coincide with the concept of network structure: network formations, network organizations, network firm, network, intercompany network, entrepreneurial network.

When studying the network interaction of economic entities, they also talk about integrated (network) structures. This concept is broader and includes such forms of associations as: corporations, holdings, concerns, enterprises with separate divisions etc.

An example of network structures that exist at the present stage in Russia are: clusters, territorial production complexes, business groups, strategic alliances and joint production. Under the influence of scientific and technological progress, the processes of globalization and competition, other forms of interaction are being formed that do not yet have stable terms, methods and approaches for their designation and research. Thus, the development of information technology destroys the traditional idea of ​​the need for spatial proximity of interacting subjects; networks of enterprises are emerging that build cooperation using organizational patterns of virtual interaction.

A common feature of all forms of network interaction is:

The presence of partnerships on a long-term basis with several economic entities.

In recent years, the scientific literature has identified the following as specific features of a network structure:

Economic independence (legal independence);

The presence of common goals, for example, such as: expansion in the economic space, obtaining a synergistic effect, increasing competitiveness and innovation, forming social capital, creating value for consumers, etc.

A significant difference between network structures and previous types of organization is that they do not imply the concentration within one enterprise of all the assets necessary to create a product, but the use of the collective assets of several enterprises. Participants in network structures recognize interdependence and strive to exchange information and cooperate.

A prerequisite for creating a network structure is the ability to exchange one or another resource. Moreover, for one enterprise this resource is redundant, and for another enterprise it is insufficient. A distinctive feature of network structures is to ensure the emergence in them of a number of positive synergistic effects and relational assets that are unattainable when its participants exist separately.

The synergistic effect is formed as a cumulative multiplied effect joint activities in the association itself and in the economy of the regions of their functioning as a result of a combination of: economies of scale, economies of combination, specialization effects, coverage effects. Which in turn helps to increase the efficiency of the production process, reduces costs and increases the income of enterprises and, accordingly, the gross regional product of the region itself.

In the process of interaction between network participants, social capital is formed, which is expressed in the form of relational rent, i.e. excess profits, jointly derived as a result of an exchange relationship, which cannot be obtained by any of the firms in isolation from each other and which can only be created through the joint idiosyncratic efforts of partners specialized in relation to their alliances.

Relational rent is the basis for the emergence of network associations of knowledge-based enterprises. In these associations, there is an exchange (transfer) of knowledge and information between participants and the joint creation of new knowledge. On the one hand, this leads to an increase in productivity at the level of an individual enterprise, on the other hand, it contributes to the development of the innovative ability of the entire network and the region as a whole. An example of associations of organizations that have achieved success through the transfer of knowledge and increasing innovative ability is the association of TexasInstrument and IBM in France, which created their own R&D centers.

The knowledge and skills available in one organization can be used in another, which expands the specialization of the enterprise and improves the ability to flexibly respond to customer requests. Thus, new competitive advantages are formed and the response of enterprises to changing economic conditions is improved.

Network interaction transforms the very nature of the development process of the regional economic system - priority is given not to the industry as an object of management, but to the region, which leads to increased regional competitiveness due to:

– ensuring an increase in the efficiency of interaction between regional enterprises and increasing the level of their income;

– assistance in organizing high-tech production, as well as innovative development of the region as a whole;

– stimulating the transfer of knowledge and the formation of new competitive advantages, differentiation of the regional economic system;

– reducing pressure on the resource base of the regions by increasing production efficiency;

– intensification of institutional and economic transformations;

– promoting the accumulation and reproduction of elements of human capital as a key asset of post-industrial transformations;

– establishing effective information interaction and cooperation between its participants, involvement of related industries.

In this regard, it is advisable to raise the question of the need for more active development of network structures, as a factor in developing the potential of the economic space, ensuring its integrity, having a significant impact on the development of regions, improving the state of their economy and the proportions of resource provision. The network structure, playing the role of a tool that stimulates the development of the region, can become one of the main points of growth of an innovation-oriented economy, creates favorable environment for the development of large, medium and small businesses and has a multiplier effect that has a positive impact on the development of industry in the region and helps improve the standard of living of the population.

References

1. Gurova E.A. Semantic essence of the category “network organization” / E.A. Gurova // Scientific potential of the 21st century: a collection of scientific works based on materials from the VII International Youth scientific conference.– Stavropol: Fabula, 2013. – P. 22-24

2. Dyer J. H. Relational approach: corporate strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantages / J. H. Dyer, H. Singh // Russian Journal of Management. - 2009. - No. 3. - P. 65-94.

3. Katkalo V.S. Interfirm networks: problems of research of new organizational strategy in the 1980-1990s // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Ser.5. Economics.1999. Vol. 2 P.21-38.

4. Titov L. Yu. Economic innovative structures and network-type institutions: theory and practice // dissertations for the degree of Doctor of Economic Sciences, 2010.

5. Khilko N.A. Participation of vertically integrated corporations and network organizations in the development of regional economic systems of modern Russia (based on materials from the Southern Federal District) // dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economic Sciences, 2013.