Breno Augusto Diniz Pereira, Juliano Nunes Alves y Patricia Ennes Silva
The benefits and advantages that cooperative networks can provide to businesses, since there is no doubt. Reduce costs, increase bargaining power, better prices and discounts, status, support, standardization, are just some of the many benefits diagnosed and validated in previous studies. Certainly, the network has a key role with respect to survival and development of enterprises, whatever the sector or the economy in which they operate.
Noted these facts and understanding the importance of this movement, the Department of Development and International Affairs of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (SEDAI), the example of innovation in the field of public policy, launched in 2000, the Program of Cooperation Network, aimed at "strengthening of micro and small enterprises, by encouraging cooperation between enterprises of generating a stimulating environment for the entrepreneur and the technical advice necessary for the formation, consolidation and development of networks" (Verschoore, 2006).
Fortunately, and by making studies in this context, the Program of Cooperation Networks has been very successful, because the networks of it provided real benefits to companies. Moreover, the success of the program also presented some difficulties. According Verschoore (2006), several obstacles of all kinds were brought to its operation, particularly with regard to the methodology and the operationalization regionalized adopted. The main obstacles are linked directly to the existing socio-economic environment, Verschoore refer to "the individualistic mentality of the entrepreneur and the low accumulation of capital in the different regions covered by the Program" (2006:34), since it is known that this latter prevents the full integration and requires continued efforts to raise awareness of the need for collaboration. Even in front of such obstacles, the program has been in development for 7 years, and with significant results.
What was intended here was to demonstrate that the process is fact, and that can bring great benefits and advantages to businesses, but regardless of any problems have been detected, which ultimately may lead to the departure of the company's network which participated.
The process of removal or exclusion of an enterprise network can bring a lot of uncomfortable. Upon entering, contracts are signed and are being presented with tempting promises of results. The expectation is high and the new challenge is accepted as a prime motivation for entrepreneurs and employees who see this process, a way of development and growth for their companies, if not of pure survival. Something goes wrong and the discouragement takes over. There are several feelings at that time by companies and by networks, after all, the image of the network is the sort of perception of the companies at some point, they believed in the process.
Finally, based on some variables set in this research, we believe that it requires further study as to his theories, and their impact on the company for x network. This is the case, for example, asymmetric information and cost-effective. As diagnosed in this study, they are considered relevant with respect to companies' decision to leave the network. Therefore, they should be better understood by business and network managers, this and other sectors of our economy, making up the difference in the development and outcome of the associative: triumph or fail.
Agndal, H., Nilsson, U. (2009); Interorganizational cost management in the exchange process. Management Accounting Research, advance online publication November 26. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2008.07.001.
Ahola, T. (2009); Efficiency in Project Networks: The role of inter-organizational relationships in project implementation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.
Ariño, A., De La Torre, J. (1998); Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary model of collaborative ventures. Organization Science, 9(3), 306-325.
Barney, J. B., Hesterly, W. (1996); Organizational economics: understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. In: CLEGG, Stewart R., HARDY, C. Handbook of organizational studies. London: Sage.
Cristoph, J. L., Doerdelein, W. (1996); Organizational economics: understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. In: CLEGG, Stewart R., HARDY, C. Handbook of organizational studies. London: Sage.
Ding, X-H, Huang, R-H. (2010); Effects of knowledge spillover on inter-organizational resource sharing decision in collaborative knowledge creation. European Journal Operational Research. 201(2):949–959.
Das, T. K., Teng, B-S. (1998); Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review. 23(3): 491–512.
Du, R., Ai, S. (2008); Cross-Organizational Knowledge Acquisition through Flexible Hiring and Joint R,D: Insights from a Survey in China. Expert Systems With Applications, advance online publication December 05. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.07.009.
Ebers, M. (1997); Explaining inter-organizational network formation. In: EBERS, M. (Ed): The Formation of Inter-Organizational Networks, Oxford: 3-40.
Fichman, M., Levinthal, D. A. (1991); Honeymoons and the liability of adoles-cence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organiza-tional relationships. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 442-468.
Gareth, B. (2005); Perfecting partnerships. Professional Engineering. 17 (21):34
Greve, H. R. (2005); Interorganizational learning and heterogeneous social structure. Organization Studies, advance online publication November 29. doi: 10.1177/0170840605053539.
Hair Jr., J. F.; Barry, B.; Money, A. H., Samouel, P. (2005); Fundamentos de méto-dos de pesquisa em administração. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009); Trust, calculation, and inter-organizational learning of tacit knowledge: An organizational roles perspec-tive. Organization Studies, advance online publication November 29. doi: 10.1177/0170840609337933
Keil, T. Strategic Alliances – A Review of the state of the art. (2000); Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business. Working Paper Series.
Lui, S. S. (2009); The Roles of Competence Trust, Formal Contract, and Time Horizon in Interorganizational Learning. Organization Studies, 30(4), 333-353.
Malhotra, N. (2001); Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Messner, D., Meyer-Stamer, J. (2000); Governance and networks. Tools to study the dynamics of clusters and global value chains. The impact of global and local governance on industrial upgrading. Disburg.
Olson, M. (1999); A lógica da ação coletiva. São Paulo: EDUSP.
Pereira, B. A. D. (2004); Estruturação de relacionamentos horizontais em rede. Un-published doctoral dissertation, School administration, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Rycroft, R.W. and Kash, D.E. (2004); Self-organizing innovation networks: impli-cations for globalization, Technovation. 24(3):187-197.
Souza, B. C., Rocha, W. (2009); Conditioning factors of interorganisational cost management – A brazilian case study. In 9th Manufacturing Accounting Re-search Conference, 21-24 June, Münster, Germany.
Verschoore Filho, J. R. S. (2006); Redes de cooperação interorganizacional: A identificação de atributos e benefícios para um modelo de gestão. Unpublis-hed doctoral dissertation, School administration, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
WILLIANSON, O. E. (1985); The Economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
WINCENT, J. (2008); An exchange approach on firm cooperative orientation and outcomes of strategic multilateral network participants. Group Organization Management, 33 (3): 303-329.
YIN, R. K. (2005); Estudo de caso: Planejamento e métodos. Porto Alegre: Book-man.
Vol. 31 (4) 2010
[Índice]