Abstract
The management of horizontal networks of companies is necessarily linked to the construction of trust between its components. Based mainly in non-contractual relationships, trust becomes a significant factor for the development of these horizontal networks. The objective of this paper is to build a theoretical model for the assessment of trust within horizontal networks of companies. The technique of theoretical triangulation through a portfolio of articles on the subject was used. Bibliographic review permitted to establish that the studies evaluated dealt with three separate trust factors: those that hamper, those that build and those that facilitate. Within each group all elements that bring beneficial forms of interaction and result in a contribution that permits the survival of networks through the mediation of trust relationships were identified. With this it is presented a parity comparison structure in which its weights can be obtained using the multicriteria method of the analytic hierarchy process. And also presents a model of evaluation of trust based on perceptions and expectations and that can be applied as an instrument for the management of relations in horizontal company networks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abreu, A., Macedo, P., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2009). Elements of a methodology to assess the alignment of core-values in collaborative networks. International Journal of Production Research, 47(17), 4907–4934.
Appio, F. P., Martini, A., Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2016). Collaborative network of firms: Antecedents and state-of-the-art properties. International Journal of Production Research, 55(7), 1–14.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in human Geography, 28(1), 31–56.
Batt, P. J. (2008). Building social capital in network. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), 487–491.
Beckett, R. C., & Jones, M. (2012). Collaborative network success and the variable nature of trust. Production Planning & Control, 23(4), 240–251.
Bergh, P., Thorgren, S., & Wincent, J. (2011). Entrepreneurs learning together: The importance of building trust for learning and exploiting business opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 17–37.
Bonner, J. M., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2005). Self-perceived strategic network identity and its effects on market performance in alliance relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1371–1380.
Bstieler, L., & Hemmert, M. (2010). Trust formation in Korean new product alliances: How important are pre-existing social ties? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2), 299–319.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005). Collaborative networks: A new scientific discipline. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16, 439–452.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008a). Collaborative networks: Reference modeling. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008b). Concept of collaboration. In Encyclopedia of networked and virtual organizations (pp. 311–315).
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., et al. (2009). A framework for computer-assisted creation of dynamic virtual organisations. International Journal of Production Research, 47(17), 4661–4690.
Campos, E. A. R. (2016). Proposta de um modelo para mensuração de confiança em redes horizontais de empresas. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia de Produção), Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Ponta Grossa - Pr.
Cassi, L., & Plunket, A. (2014). Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: In search of the proximity paradox. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(2), 395–422.
Clarke, N. (2006). The relationships between network commitment, its antecedents and network performance. Management Decision, 44(9), 1183–1205.
Cheikhrouhou, N., Piot, G., & Pouly, M. (2010). A multi-criteria model for the evaluation of business benefits in horizontal collaborative networks. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(3), 301–309.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act. Englewood Cliffs: N. J., Prentice Hall.
De Wever, S., Martens, R., & Vandenbempt, K. (2005). The impact of trust on strategic resource acquisition through interorganizational networks: Towards a conceptual model. Human Relations, 58(12), 1523–1543.
Durugbo, C. (2016). Collaborative networks: A systematic review and multi-level framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(12), 3749–3776.
Eng, T.-Y. (2005). The effects of learning on relationship value in a business network context. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12(4), 67–101.
Ensslin, L., Ensslin, S. R., Lacerda, R. T. O., & Tasca, J. E. (2010). Processo de seleção de portfólio bibliográfico. Processo técnico com patente de registro pendente junto ao INPI. Brasil.
Eriksson, P. E. (2008). Achieving suitable coopetition in buyer-supplier relationships: The case of AstraZeneca. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 15(4), 425–454.
Felzensztein, C., & Gimmon, E. (2008). Industrial Clusters and Social Networking for enhancing inter-firm cooperation: The case of natural resources-based industries in Chile. Journal of Business Market Management, 2(4), 187–202.
Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 465–499.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). Levels at what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational. Journal of Management, 8(4), 1167–1230.
Gao, H., Knight, J. G., & Ballantyne, D. (2012). Guanxi as a gateway in Chinese-Western business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(6), 456–467.
Gao, W., Liu, L., & Qian, L. (2016). The personal touch of business relationship: A study of the determinants and impact of business friendship. Asia Pacific Journal Management. doi:10.1007/s10490-016-9464-1.
Gausdal, A. H., Svare, H., & Möllering, G. (2016). Why don’t all high-trust networks achieve strong network benefits? A case-based exploration of cooperation in Norwegian SME networks. Journal of Trust Research, 6(2), 194–212.
Ghisi, F. A., & Martinelli, D. P. (2006). Systemic view of interorganisational relationships: An analysis of business networks. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(5), 461–473.
Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus business in marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71, 121–139.
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2008). Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 165–190.
Hanna, V., & Walsh, K. (2008). Interfirm cooperation among small manufacturing firms. International Small Business Journal, 26(3), 299–321.
Hadjikhani, A., & Thilenius, P. (2005). The impact of horizontal and vertical connections on relationships’ commitment and trust. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(3), 136–147.
Haegeman, K., Marinelli, E., Scapolo, F., Ricci, A., & Sokolov, A. (2013). Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-Oriented Tecnology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration? Techonological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 386–397.
Hardwick, J., Anderson, A. R., & Cruickshank, D. (2013). Trust formation processes in innovative collaborations: Networking as knowledge building practices. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 4–21.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0, The Cochrane Collaboration.
Huang, K.-P. (2013). Trustworthiness and ethical considerations: A review of personal connections in China. Quality & Quantity, 47(5), 2723–2727.
Huang, Y., & Wilkinson, I. F. (2013). The dynamics and evolution of trust in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 455–465.
Hui, Encon Y. Y., & Tsang, A. H. C. (2006). The inter-organizational relationship in a multi-contractor business network. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(3), 252–266.
Khvatova, T., Khvatova, T., Block, M., Block, M., Zhukov, D., Zhukov, D., et al. (2016). How to measure trust: the percolation model applied to intra-organisational knowledge sharing networks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 918–935.
Kukalis, S. (2009). Agglomeration economies and firm performance: The case of industry clusters. Journal of Management, 36(2), 453–481.
Lapiedra, R., et al. (2004). Role of information systems on the business network formation process: An empirical analysis of the automotive sector. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(3), 219–228.
Larson, M., & Gyimóthy, S. (2013). Collaboration deficiencies in meeting networks: Case studies of two peri-urban destinations. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 5(1), 62–80.
Lee, Y., Lee, I. W., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration networks in economic development policy: An exponential random graph model analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 547–573.
Lei, H.-S., & Huang, C.-H. (2014). Geographic clustering, network relationships and competitive advantage: Two industrial clusters in Taiwan. Management Decision, 52(5), 852–871.
Levesque, V. R., Calhoun, A. J., Bell, K. P., & Johnson, T. R. (2017). Turning contention into collaboration: Engaging power, trust, and learning in collaborative networks. Society & Natural Resources, 30(2), 245–260.
Liao, T.-J. (2010). Cluster and performance in foreign firms: The role of resources, knowledge, and trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 161–169.
Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H.-Y. (2004). The role of trust and contractual safeguards on cooperation in non-equity alliances. Journal of management, 30(4), 471–485.
Lui, S. S. (2009). The roles of competence trust, formal contract, and time horizon in interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 30(4), 333–353.
Macke, J., et al. (2013). Social capital in collaborative networks competitiveness: The case of the Brazilian Wine Industry Cluster. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 26, 1–2.
Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. (2011). Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 981–998.
Manolova, T. S., Gyoshev, B. S., & Manev, I. M. (2007). The role of interpersonal trust for entrepreneurial exchange in a transition economy. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(2), 107–122.
Marianne Vainio, A. (2005). Exchange and combination of knowledge-based resources in network relationships: A study of software firms in Finland. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9–10), 1078–1095.
Martins, D. M., de Faria, A. C., Prearo, L. C., & Arruda, A. G. S. (2017). The level of influence of trust, commitment, cooperation, and power in the interorganizational relationships of Brazilian credit cooperatives. Revista de Administração, 52(1), 47–58.
Minnaar, R. A., Vosselman, E., van Veen-Dirks, P. M., & Zahir-ul-Hassan, M. K. (2016). A relational perspective on the contract-control-trust nexus in an interfirm relationship. Management Accounting Research. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2016.07.003.
Moeller, K. (2009). Intangible and financial performance: Causes and effects. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 224–245.
Möllering, G., Bachmann, R., & Hee Lee, S. (2004). Introduction: Understanding organizational trust-foundations, constellations, and issues of operationalization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 556–570.
Msanjila, S. S., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2007). Modelling trust relationships in collaborative networked organizations. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 6(1), 40–55.
Msanjila, S. S., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). Trust analysis and assessment in virtual organization breeding environments. International Journal of Production Research, 46(5), 1253–1295.
Msanjila, S. S., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2010). FETR: A framework to establish trust relationships among organizations in VBEs. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(3), 251–265.
Msanjila, S. S., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2011). On modelling evolution of trust in organisations towards mediating collaboration. Production Planning & Control, 22(5–6), 518–537.
Murphy, J. T. (2006). Building trust in economic space. Progress in Human Geography, 30(4), 427–450.
Naesens, K., Gelders, L., & Pintelon, L. (2009). A swift response framework for measuring the strategic fit for a horizontal collaborative initiative. International Journal of Production Economics, 121(2), 550–561.
Niu, K.-H. (2010). Organizational trust and knowledge obtaining in industrial clusters. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 141–155.
Nowell, B. (2009). Profiling capacity for coordination and systems change: The relative contribution of stakeholder relationships in interorganizational collaboratives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44(3–4), 196–212.
Oba, B., & Semerciöz, F. (2005). Antecedents of trust in industrial districts: An empirical analysis of inter-firm relations in a Turkish industrial district. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(3), 163–182.
Oh, Y., & Bush, C. B. (2014). Exploring the Role of Dynamic Social Capital in Collaborative Governance. London: Administration & Society.
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Development in sociology, 20, 103–118.
Pagani, R., Kovaleski, J., & Resende, L. M. (2015). Methodi Ordinatio: A proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication. Scientometrics, pp. 1–27. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1744-x.
Parung, J., & Bititci, U. S. (2008). A metric for collaborative networks. Business Process Management Journal, 14(5), 654–674.
Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L., Tafuri, S. R., & Palumbo, M. (2013). Horizontal collaboration in logistics: A comprehensive framework. Research in Logistics & Production, 3(4), 243–254.
Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L., & Rossi Tafuri, S. (2015). Trust development and horizontal collaboration in logistics: A theory based evolutionary framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(1), 83–97.
Porras, S. T., Clegg, S., & Crawford, J. (2004). Trust as networking knowledge: Precedents from Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 345–363.
Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: Service provider-client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63(October), 38–56.
Raiser, M., Rousso, A., & Steves, F. (2008). Trust in transition: Cross-country and firm evidence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 24(2), 407–43.
Rampersad, G., Quester, P., & Troshani, I. (2010). Examining network factors: Commitment, trust, coordination and harmony. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(7), 487–500.
Raue, J. S., & Wieland, A. (2015). The interplay of different types of governance in horizontal cooperations: A view on logistics service providers. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 26(2), 401–423.
Rindfleisch, A. (2000). Organizational trust and interfirm cooperation: An examination of horizontal versus vertical alliances. Marketing Letters, 11(1), 81–95.
Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2009). VO breeding environments & virtual organizations integral business process management framework. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(5), 569–597.
Rooks, G., Tazelaar, F., & Snijders, C. (2010). Gossip and reputation in business networks. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 90–106.
Rosas, J., Macedo, P., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2011). Extended competencies model for collaborative networks. Production Planning & Control, 22(5–6), 501–517.
Ruiz, Ó. R. (2005). La triangulación como estratégia de investigación em ciências sociales. Revista Madrid \(+d\), 31(2).
Ruohomaa, S., & Kutvonen, L. (2010). Trust and distrust in adaptive inter-enterprise collaboration management. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 5(2), 118–136.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research Amsterdam: North Holland, 48, 9–26.
Şengün, A. E., & Wasti, S. N. (2007). Trust, control, and risk a test of Das and Teng’s conceptual framework for pharmaceutical Buyer–Supplier relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 430–464.
Şengün, A. E. (2010). Which type of trust for inter-firm learning? Industry and Innovation, 17(2), 193–213.
Şengün, A. E., & Önder, Ç. (2011). The conditional impact of competence trust on inter-firm learning in a collectivist SME context. Industry and Innovation, 18(8), 791–812.
Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. (2008). Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes’ influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1), 73–108.
Span, K. C. L. (2011). The relationship between governance roles and performance in local public interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 186–201.
Svensson, G. (2004). Vulnerability in business relationships: The gap between dependence and trust. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(7), 469–483.
Tidström, A., & Hagberg-Andersson, Å. (2012). Critical events in time and space when cooperation turns into competition in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 333–343.
Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration. Management Decision, 43(1), 123–148.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships toward an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 407–428.
Waite, P., & Williams, P. (2009). Collaboration or opportunism? The role of social capital in developing successful export clusters. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(6), 499–512.
Wallenburg, C. M., & Raue, J. S. (2011). Conflict and its governance in horizontal cooperations of logistics service providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(4), 385–400.
Welter, F., & Kautonen, T. (2005). Trust, social networks and enterprise development: Exploring evidence from East and West Germany. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(3), 367–379.
Westerlund, M., & Svahn, S. (2008). A relationship value perspective of social capital in networks of software SMEs. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), 492–501.
Willem, A., & Lucidarme, S. (2014). Pitfalls and challenges for trust and effectiveness in collaborative networks. Public Management Review, 16(5), 733–760.
Williamson, O. E. (2002). The theory of the firm as governance structure: From choice to contract. Journal of Economic Perspectives., 16(3), 171–195.
Woolthuis, R. K., Hillebrand, B., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies, 26(6), 813–840.
Wu, W. P., & Choi, W. L. (2004). Transaction cost, social capital and firms’ synergy creation in Chinese business networks: An integrative approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 325–343.
Zhang, Ly, & Li, F. (2014). The impact of risk perception on developing incentive systems for relational contracting. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. doi:10.1007/s12205-013-0450-6.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to CAPES for the financial support granted for the development of scientific activity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix I: Comparison structure
Primary indicator | Priority scale | Comparison indicator |
|---|---|---|
Barriers to the Trust | ||
(F1) Opportunist Behavior | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F2) Interpersonal and Intergroup Behavior antagonistic |
(F1) Opportunist Behavior | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F3) Group Attitudes |
(F2) Interpersonal and Intergroup Behavior antagonistic | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F3) Group Attitudes |
External aspects for trust building | ||
(F4) Cultural identity | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F5) Norms and Beliefs |
(F4) Cultural identity | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F6) Values and Principles |
(F4) Cultural identity | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F7) Formal Contracts |
(F4) Cultural identity | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F8) Informal Contracts |
(F5) Norms and Beliefs | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F6) Values and Principles |
(F5) Norms and Beliefs | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F7) Formal Contracts |
(F5) Norms and Beliefs | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F8) Informal Contracts |
(F6) Values and Principles | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F7) Formal Contracts |
(F6) Values and Principles | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F8) Informal Contracts |
(F7) Formal Contracts | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F8) Informal Contracts |
Factors of construction of trust | ||
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F10) Interactivity levels |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F11) Shared Technical Skills |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F12) Collective effort |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F13) People Management |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F14) Relational governance |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F9) Communication channels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F11) Shared Technical Skills |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F12) Collective effort |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F13) People Management |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F14) Relational governance |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F10) Interactivity levels | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F11) Shared Technical Skills | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F12) Collective effort |
(F11) Shared Technical Skills | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F13) People Management |
(F11) Shared Technical Skills | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F14) Relational governance |
(F11) Shared Technical Skills | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous |
(F11) Shared Technical Skills | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F11) Shared Technical Skills | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F12) Collective effort | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F13) People Management |
(F12) Collective effort | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F14) Relational governance |
(F12) Collective effort | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous |
(F12) Collective effort | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F12) Collective effort | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F13) People Management | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F14) Relational governance |
(F13) People Management | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous |
(F13) People Management | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F13) People Management | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F14) Relational governance | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous |
(F14) Relational governance | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F14) Relational governance | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F16) Performance of Production |
(F15) Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
(F16) Performance of Production | 9 7 5 3 1 3 5 7 9 | (F17) Economic interaction |
Appendix II: Research questionnaire (perceptions)
(1) Time of actuation of the company: | ||||||
( ) less than 5 years ( ) between 5 and 10 years ( ) 10 to 15 years ( ) more than 15 years ( ) more than 20 years Inform how long___ | ||||||
(2) Time of actuation in this network: | ||||||
( ) less than 5 years ( ) between 5 and 10 years ( ) 10 to 15 years ( ) more than 15 years ( ) more than 20 years Inform how long__ | ||||||
(3) Number of employees: ___ | ||||||
To answer questions C23 to C42, consider the following scale: | ||||||
0 = ALWAYS 1 = ALMOST ALWAYS 2 = SOMETIMES 3 = ALMOST NEVER 4 = NEVER | ||||||
Barriers to the Trust | ||||||
Opportunist Behavior | A1-I already saw opportunistic attitudes made by other members of the network | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
A2-I have already seen in this network the ”goodwill” of the partners only with an opportunist character | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
Interpersonal and Intergroup Behavior antagonistic | A3-There have already saw situations in the network where conflicts intrigues have affected trust between partners | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
A4-There have already been situations where sensitive information has been exposed between partners | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
A5-I have already seen the lack of commitment of the network partners | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
A6-I have already saw antagonistic behaviors (opposites), which affected the relationships of trust | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
A7-I have witnessed in this network bad faith of partner and behaviors considered opposite to the principles of the network | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
Group Attitudes | A8-I have already saw network partners acting selfishly, and this has compromised trust among others and the development of the network | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
A9-In this network already had partner that had individualistic behaviors and this undermined the confidence | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
A10-In this network I have already witnessed group rivalry by partners, and this had negative repercussions for the other partners | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
To answer questions B11 to B22, consider the following scale: | ||||||
0 = NEVER 1 = ALMOST NEVER 2 = SOMETIMES 3 = ALMOST ALWAYS 4 = ALWAYS | ||||||
External aspects for trust building | ||||||
Cultural identity | B11-In this network the cultural differences of companies are complemented through cooperation between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B12-In this network the cultural aspect of results orientation encourages partners to cooperate and this minimizes aspects of distrust | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
B13-In dealing with aspects aimed at cooperation there is in this network a degree of cultural flexibility, aiming at results orientation | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Norms and Beliefs | B14-In this network the responsibilities, obligations and possible benefits are distributed equally among all the partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B15-In this network business opportunities are absorbed and competitive strategies are drawn, with the goal of maintaining the network objectives | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
B16-In this network the competitive strategies are traced by the governance and spread to the whole network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Values and Principles | B17In this network behaviors contrary to the principles of the network are punished, this shows that there is respect with the other members | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B18-In this network the compatibility of principles and values delineates aspects of trust, and opposing behaviors are reduced | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Formal Contracts | B19-In this network trust is not shaken when the partner is coerced by the contractual relationship | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B20-In this network I feel safe in cooperating with the network because there are contractual safeguards that protect my intellectual property and this is a form of control, to avoid opportunistic behaviors | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Informal Contracts | B21-In this network informal agreements are effective ways for me to have confidence in the network and consequently feel secure in cooperating | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B22-When it comes to cooperation, dialogue in this network works better than the contractual relationship | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
To answer questions C23 to C42, consider the following scale: | ||||||
0 = NEVER 1 = ALMOST NEVER 2 = SOMETIMES 3 = ALMOST ALWAYS 4 = ALWAYS | ||||||
Factors of construction of trust | ||||||
Communication channels | C23-In this network the discussions techniques, besides the experiences and knowledge, allow to recognize the plans and actions to be carried out by the partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Interactivity levels | C24-In this network group relationships function as a mechanism for recognition of intentions and foster the quality of relationships | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C25-In this network the existing bonds marked by relationships and interactions reinforce the idea of cooperation and increase trust between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Shared Technical Skills | C26-In this network I share resources and inputs between the network and I am also benefited. I believe that all these interactions make collaborative processes more effective | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C27-In this network my activities are integrated with the other companies of the network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Collective effort | C28-In this network the collective effort allows the network, not only growth, but also reinforces the spirit of social capital generation | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C29-In the execution of works and activities there are equities relationships and these occur fairly and impartially | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
C30-In this network the results of efforts undertaken by all the partners of the network aiming at cooperation are considered sources for results to be achieved favoring reliability between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
People Management | C31-In this network, the bureaucratization of processes makes the partners more engaged with the purposes of the network and this allows a flexible and committed team | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C32-The strategic alignment of this network allows building trust between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
C33-In this network the selection of partners follows parameters, aiming to avoid problems of undesirable behaviors | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Relational Governance | C34-In this network the cooperation works very well, due to the reliable structures and the fulfillment of operating rules of use of the technological and intellectual contribution and also in the acquisition of technology | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C35-In this network, social capital is fundamental for cooperation and trust | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous | C36-In this network the geographic proximity makes sure that bonds of trust are built more quickly | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C37-Acting in this network has brought to my company a greater visibility, providing reliability of my company in relation to my services rendered | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Performance of Production | C38-I have already witnessed a lack of trust or cooperation that has been provided by the insertion of new products / services and this has increased the credibility of the network as a whole and encouraged the partners to cooperate | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C39-I trust this network and I cooperate, because, my infrastructure is compatible with the other companies of the network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Economic interaction | C40-In this network transaction costs, access to suppliers are facilitated by existing trust partnerships as well as facilitated by geographical proximity | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C41-Solidity and credibility were an important requirement for me to join this network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
C42-In this network the financial cooperation transmits to my company and the other companies of the network greater security and a commitment of the partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Appendix III: Research questionnaire (expectations)
To answer questions A1 to A10, consider the following scale: | ||||||
0 = I FULLY DISAGREE 1 = I DISAGREE MOST OF THE TIMES 2 = ONCE AGAIN I AGREE, I ONCE AGREE 3 = AGREE MOST OF THE TIMES 4 = TOTALLY AGREE | ||||||
Barriers to the Trust | ||||||
Opportunist Behavior | A1-Opportunistic actions or attitudes of partners hamper the development of the network, as well as work together | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
A2- I believe that the ”goodwill” of the partners is only opportunistic | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Interpersonal and Intergroup Behavior antagonistic | A3-I believe that conflicts and intrigues tend to affect trust between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
A4-There is uncertainty on the part of the partners when exposing information considered important | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
A5 - I believe that when partners’ expectations are contrary to the objectives of the network, there may be a lack of commitment to the network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
A6-Interpersonal differences or contrary behaviors compromise confidence among members | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
A7-The bad faith of the partner is perceived through behaviors considered opposite to the principles of the network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Group Attitudes | A8-Selfish attitudes on the part of partners compromise relationships, creating barriers to trust | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
A9-The individualism of the partner in the network, shows how much he intends to act opportunistically | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
A10-Rivalry between network partners generates economic friction as partners become neglected, resulting in product / process failures | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
To answer questions B11 to B22, consider the following scale: | ||||||
0 = I FULLY DISAGREE 1 = I DISAGREE MOST OF THE TIMES 2 = ONCE AGAIN I AGREE, I ONCE AGREE 3 = AGREE MOST OF THE TIMES 4 = TOTALLY AGREE | ||||||
External aspects for trust building | ||||||
Cultural identity | B11-Cultural differences are rewarded by intense cooperation | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B12-The cultural aspect is a management tool and they collaborate in the articulation of values, responsibilities and obligations | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
B13-When culture is flexible, more prone to networking lies in developing aspects of trust | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Norms and Beliefs | B14-Responsibilities, obligations and possible benefits should be distributed equally among all partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B15-Competitiveness strategies should be formulated within the objectives of the network, but based on ethical principles and values | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
B16-Competitiveness strategies must be traced by governance and disseminated to the network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Values and Principles | B17-Behaviors contrary to the principles of the network must be punished, as this shows that there is respect with the other members | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B18-Compatibility of principles and values delineates aspects of trust, and opposing behaviors are reduced | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Formal Contracts | B19-Trust is not shaken when the partner is coerced by the contractual relationship | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B20-When contractual safeguards exist, partners feel safe to cooperate | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Informal Contracts | B21-Informal agreements are not effective ways for me to have confidence in the network and consequently I feel insecure to cooperate | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
B22-When it comes to cooperation, dialogue works better than the contractual relationship | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
To answer questions C23 to C42, consider the following scale: | ||||||
0 = I FULLY DISAGREE 1 = I DISAGREE MOST OF THE TIMES 2 = ONCE AGAIN I AGREE, I ONCE AGREE 3 = AGREE MOST OF THE TIMES 4 = TOTALLY AGREE | ||||||
Factors of construction of trust | ||||||
Communication channels | C23-Communication channels formed within the network are fundamental for the generation of trust between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Interactivity levels | C24-Group relationships, whether in meeting format or are not valued for network purposes | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C25-Bonds marked by relationships and interactions reinforce cooperation and trust between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Shared Technical Skills | C26-All interactions between partners make collaborative processes more effective and this is valuable for network purposes | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C27-By integrating the activities with the other companies on the network, I test my reputation and that means that my production performance is getting better | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Collective effort | C28-The insertion in new markets, allows a greater interactive comprehensiveness and allows to create a solid base of reliability between the partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C29-Adaptation, reciprocity and mutuality are fundamental as criteria of trust | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
C30-The creation of synergies reinforces individual and collective impact, and this affects the building of trust | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
People Management | C31-The de-bureaucracy of processes, collaborates with the effective participation of intellectual capital, adding value to the network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C32-Strategic alignment is key to building trust between partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
C33-A good selection of partners is essential for network formation and in order to avoid unwanted behaviors | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Relational Governance | C34-Innovations in products, processes and services, demand in the cooperative interaction, aiming to meet the requirements of customers and provides reliability relationships | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C35-The social capital built on this network is critical to cooperation and trust above all else | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Pressures Endogenous and Exogenous | C36-Geographical proximity is an important factor in building trust bonds | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C37-Networking brings greater visibility to the company because the cooperative alliance provides reliability of my company in relation to my services rendered | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Performance of Production | C38-Technical skills as well as my partner’s experiences provide the network the creating a cognitive foundation and best practices | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C39-When infrastructure is compatible with other network companies this increases trust between members | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Economic interaction | C40-When the partner is geographically close, the partner is more likely to collaborate, as well as to receive the benefits of participation | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
C41-The strength of the network is an important requirement for me to enter the network and this also for new partners | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
C42-When the network is stable the partners feel at ease in cooperating financially because they believe in the strength of it. Uncertainties and risks are easily overcome | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Campos, E.A.R., Resende, L.M. & Pontes, J. Barriers, external aspects and trust factors in horizontal networks of companies: a theoretical proposal for the construction of a model for evaluation of trust. J Intell Manuf 30, 1547–1562 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1339-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1339-x