Page - (000284) - in Knowledge and Networks

281 2010). It is apparent from discussions with members of the network that violating the taboo of unfriendly imitation results in perceptible sanctions against illegitimate behavior, in particular through exclusion from the local communication ecology in the network. But what are the consequences for the excluded firm? Does the black sheep really experience disadvantages from soft exclusion? Forms of Cooperation and the Consequences of Breaking the Taboo In the first meeting and in personal interviews, network members highlighted the gains from collective learning among members. Employees often asked for assis- tance, and they exchanged program parts, codes, and other technical or organiza- tional solutions with employees from other member firms just across the corridor. The physical proximity in the same building, together with the related activities of the firms in the same field of technology, was found to be a powerful source of col- laborative learning. The information revealed in the interviews was used to develop a specific network questionnaire, which was then used for a network survey to cap- ture all bilateral relationships across four distinct forms of cooperation among all members of Comra.de (see Fig. 13.2). The first form of cooperation in this multilevel network was the imitation-of- solutions network. Firms in the network survey were asked to provide information on the use and transfer of solutions from other members. Over the past four years, have you introduced in your company new features or concepts that were developed by other members of Comra.de? Please consider novelties such as products, plug-ins, applications, code parts, marketing concepts, and organizational con- cepts. If this was the case, which companies developed these new features? The responses were used to construct a network in which each link denoted an instance of one member imitating another member’s solution. This type of imitation was of no legal relevance with regard to copyright violations. The companies freely disclosed their knowledge, and the imitation constituted reuse of artifacts in soft- ware or the company’s organization, which are very difficult to protect under law. The second form of cooperation was the knowledge-exchange network. In the interviews, members argued that network activities increased their opportunities for imitation and information transfer. The companies reported that knowledge was regularly exchanged both between employees and at a management level. Employees and managers either held informal discussions in the corridors or specifically looked for each other to obtain help and advice to solve concrete problems. On the basis of these interview descriptions, the members in the network survey were asked to indi- cate all partners who had helped them solve work-related problems, a proven survey item that conveyed valid representations of the knowledge network in previous studies (Glückler, 2008, 2013b, 2014; Glückler & Panitz, 2014). 13 Connectivity in Contiguity