Comments on: Network Positions and Competitive Advantage http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:11:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Nicolai Foss http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/#comment-6335 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:42:06 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/#comment-6335 Rich,You are right, of course: Gus, not Toby. A slip indeed, but not Freudian.

]]> By: Richard Makadok http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/#comment-6333 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:33:07 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/#comment-6333 Hi, Nicolai.

Brandenburger’s co-author on the biform games paper is actually Harborne “Gus” Stuart, not Toby Stuart. A Freudian slip, perhaps?

Anyway, Mike tells me that his paper with Olav has been accepted for Management Science (congratulations).

Cheers,
Rich

]]> By: brayden http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/#comment-6332 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:43:43 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/network-positions-and-competitive-advantage/#comment-6332 I wonder how this argument squares with the argument made in this paper, which was published in the American Economic Review. Casella and Hanaki maintain that networks (or network positions) “work best when they are unintentional, and thus free by-products people’s social life.” Networks that are bought don’t seem to provide the same information signals that spontaneous networks do.

]]>