Page - (000289) - in Knowledge and Networks

286 model 4 encompasses all three levels of cooperation and confirms the combined effects of knowledge exchange and project cooperation on imitation relationships. In summary, we see that various levels of cooperation and prevailing conventions of friendly imitation supported the transfer of solutions between members. This coop- erative learning promoted the innovative abilities of the individual members and was fostered in particular by the mutual exchange of knowledge between the com- panies and their joint project work. Conclusion Although spatial contiguity and network connectivity have for the most part been investigated separately for their role in knowledge creation, we have combined the two perspectives to explore the opportunities and tensions that emerge from situa- tions in which organized connectivity and spatial colocation come together. We have argued that connectivity among firms facilitates purposive collaboration and forms of friendly imitation, whereas spatial proximity also enhances the mutual vis- ibility among even disconnected firms and thus increases the incentives for unfriendly forms of rival learning and unilateral imitation. The case of Comra.de has illustrated how an organized business network’s members who are colocated in an office building have experienced both friendly and unfriendly imitation. Our analysis has shown the imitation of successful solutions from other members. Variation leads to a superior position, and imitation gives the company a head start when looking for new solutions. Even if the network promotes these collective gains from learning, not all of the companies are equally committed to cooperation. In particular, members learn from the partners with whom they have worked on earlier projects and with whom they have repeatedly exchanged knowledge that can be used in the company to solve work-related problems. What are the consequences for the management of organized networks? Variation and imitation in organized networks are an opportunity to reduce the individual’s costs of continuous learning. This process can be actively supported if the firms manage to share their knowledge and to work together on projects. As Dyer and Hatch (2006) ascertained for the automotive industry, a mutual opening of the firm is to the advantage of all of the partners. However, a convention of friendly imitation is also an opportunity to develop excellent practices for developing common learn- ing processes and, at a later stage, to establish network goods (Glückler & Hammer, 2015). Network goods in Comra.de could be joint program databases or organiza- tional concepts for cooperation based on the division of labor. We argue that aware- ness of the convention of friendly imitation is a fundamental requirement for successful cooperative learning. However, variation and imitation in physical proximity also allow spillover effects from friendly imitation. One of these results was reconstructed in detail in the inter- views with members. Unfriendly imitation is regarded as a breach of existing con- ventions, and its effects quickly circulate among members (Coleman, 1988). In the J. Glückler and I. Hammer