A network of networks: knowledge development across network boundaries Open Access

Regional strategic networks (RSNs) are designed to drive development in regions with limited resources and sparse business activity, making them a widely used approach to tackling economic challenges. This is especially important for peripheral areas with few small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are often geographically dispersed (Lundberg and Johanson, 2011; Huggins and Thompson, 2014; Lundberg and Öberg, 2021). These initiatives, often led by regional or national governments, seek to boost regional growth by attracting new businesses and supporting existing ones to avoid closures, bankruptcies or operational difficulties.

Part of this support focuses on making firms work together towards shared output or to revamp their operations and improve their competitive position (Eklinder-Frick et al., 2011; Lundberg and Johanson, 2011; Persson et al., 2011). Sharing knowledge and fostering social interaction are central to these efforts (Öberg and Lundberg, 2022). For example, the European Union introduced the Small Business Act in 2008 to boost SME competitiveness by promoting collaboration between firms (European Union, 2008). Although business networks arise from business exchanges (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995), this act and similar policies have led to networks formed on other foundations (Möller and Rajala, 2007).

RSN initiatives, however, are not always successful (Huggins, 2001; Thorgren et al., 2009; Cisi et al., 2020). This is not surprising, as firms often begin without knowing much about each other’s businesses and without any prior or natural business exchanges. They typically lack complementary resources or demands, which makes collaboration more difficult (Andrésen et al., 2012). Given the limited potential for significant business benefits, firms rarely prioritise RSN participation, as it requires substantial time and effort to build knowledge about and interest in other participants.

Research also frequently shows that the primary outcome of RSNs is social bonding among firm representatives (Eklinder-Frick et al., 2011), with these social interactions occurring within the RSN’s formal structure. Research often ends up with studies capturing the very existence of social networking, their characteristics in terms of the number of connections, the centrality of the firm (Bhagavatula et al., 2010) and related social network analysis terms (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).

Meanwhile, entrepreneurship research highlights that social interaction among individuals is a key factor in driving entrepreneurship and growth (Davidsson and Honig, 2003), especially when these networks include entrepreneurs (Baraldi et al., 2019). Although various factors can influence how entrepreneurship and growth emerge from social interactions – or whether social bonding within an RSN leads to similar outcomes – this suggests the need for new approaches to studying RSNs and viewing social networks as integral to them. In the context of RSNs, social interactions may still be highly specific and lack long-term business potential, but this remains poorly understood. More importantly, it is essential to explore alternative ways to organise RSNs, focusing on the structure of interactions and how different networks – such as RSNs, social networks, business networks or their sub-components – interconnect. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to examine knowledge development across network boundaries.

In the paper, we apply a knowledge-based lens (Felin and Hesterly, 2007) to RSNs. To capture knowledge development and changes within and between networks, a process study approach is essential (Pettigrew, 1997). As Hoang and Antoncic (2003) observe, there is limited process research on the role of social bonding in entrepreneurial success. Process studies should examine how social networks develop over time, integrate into business interactions, inspire innovation or even serve as foundations for new ideas and ventures. In the RSN context, such studies involve evaluating RSN initiatives over an extended period to uncover how interactions evolve, take different directions and engage a diverse range of firm representatives over time (Hanna and Walsh, 2008).

Along our ambitions with this paper, we thereby study how various networks – the social networks, RSNs and business networks – interact, depend on each other and evolve in their relationships and causal connections over time. A key feature of these developments in RSNs is the formation of sub-networks, which bring together individuals with similar professions across participating firms. This paper examines how these sub-networks are created and dissolved within the RSN framework. We ask: How are different networks related and changed during the course of an RSN? What are the implications for knowledge development?

The paper contributes to existing research by examining various networks as interdependent and interconnected within the framework of an RSN. Although earlier RSN studies have primarily taken a linear approach – focusing on relationships from the RSN to social networks to foster business networks – this paper builds on the notion of various interconnected networks as discussed by Ford and Mouzas (2013), while applying it to the RSN context. Our findings highlight not only the interactions among these networks over time but also the importance of professionalised sub-networks within RSNs. We introduce the concept of matrixed social networks and democratised networking of firms. This offers a fresh perspective on the organisation of RSNs and how they influence subsequent business networking, enhancing the structural dimensions of networks within the RSN and emphasising their business representation. In addition, this paper contributes to the theoretical understanding of RSN development by describing how supporting and self-terminating sub-networks interact within the RSN. It shows how these sub-networks connect to social, business and knowledge development dimensions, providing deeper insights into the processual evolution of RSNs.

Research on business networks assume that firms use networking as their way of strategising (Håkansson and Ford, 2002). Networking involves actionable steps based on envisioned opportunities and network constraints, encompassing both direct relationships and broader connections (Mouzas et al., 2008; Veal and Mouzas, 2010; Ford and Mouzas, 2013). The networking can in turn be divided between the purposeful linking to others to reach resources needed, and the attempt to pursue a strategy in a business landscape of others reacting and pursuing their individual strategies (Mouzas, 2006; Öberg et al., 2012; Öberg et al., 2016).

Uncertainty is inherent in business networks. It arises from determining which partners to collaborate with (network uncertainty), resolving challenges and presenting offerings (problem uncertainty) and delivering on commitments (fulfilment uncertainty) (Ford and Mouzas, 2010). The uncertainty stems from the interdependence and interconnectivity that define business networks. Although firms depend on others, they also shape their own futures and make decisions that affect other parties.

The “no business is an island” parable (Håkansson and Snehota, 1989) emphasises the resource interdependencies within networks (Mouzas and Ford, 2012). It also highlights how strategies affect a firm’s possibilities in the market place (Öberg et al., 2016). Consequences are plenty, where development of firms and offerings become effects of the networks rather than introduced in the network settings (Aaboen et al., 2016).

The social dimensions of business networks play a key role in holding them together through actor bonds (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). Here, the entrepreneurship literature relying on social networks is different (Baraldi et al., 2019). Social networks are seen as a source of inspiration for becoming an entrepreneur or generating new ideas (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006), rather than as a foundation for future business relationships or exchanges.

Beyond the social networks that precede firm formation or connect firms, the social ties between firms are closely linked to knowledge, which is a critical resource. These ties hold substantial value for firms. The concept of social capital highlights that social connections are not just about relationships but represent a valuable resource for firms (Eklinder-Frick et al., 2012).

Once we start to elaborate on social connections while describing their links to business, to entrepreneurship or as one important link between firms that helps upholding and developing business relationships, we begin to acknowledge that various networks may co-exist and affect each other over time: the business network and the social network, respectively. By introducing RSNs – which are purposefully created and often lack initial social or business exchanges among participants – we can begin to understand the interrelation and possible interdependence among these three types of networks: the social networks, the RSNs and the business networks.

More specifically, social connections may emerge from the RSN itself. Firms within the RSN operate – or attempt to operate – within the broader business landscape while being part of the RSN. At the same time, social networks may contribute to the formation of lasting business networks or serve as a starting point for entrepreneurship. These developments align with RSNs’ goals to foster entrepreneurship and create a foundation for business networks.

Returning to how a network exhibits various characteristics, social network analysis provides a vocabulary to describe the structure of social networks (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) in terms of centrality, density and complexity. Centrality highlights a party’s position in the network and is therefore relative others. Density describes the compactness of the network, measured by the number of actual connections compared to the total possible connections (i.e. if all parties were interconnected).

Complexity relates to the size of the network, encompassing the number of elements and potential conflicts (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). In addition, social network analysis considers the relational and cognitive dimensions of networks (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The relational dimension focuses on the nature of connections among parties, including the presence of trust. The cognitive dimension addresses the alignment or misalignment of goals among actors.

If applying these characteristics also to business networks (Öberg, 2018, 2024) and RSNs, we can see that each network type may exhibit distinct structural, relational and cognitive characteristics. The overlaps or differences between these dimensions can have significant implications for their overall functionality. One example of such differences is highlighted by Story et al. (2009), who describe how radical innovations thrive in networks of non-coupled or loosely connected firms, paired with strong and trusting social connections.

Deeply connected to the dynamics of networks, whether business or social networks, or RSNs, is knowledge. Knowledge emphasises the connections among parties in these networks: how knowledge is developed, transferred and integrated among parties (Cobben et al., 2022; Öberg and Lundberg, 2022). It thereby describes how parties collaborate to exchange or co-create knowledge, which in turn influences the nodes – whether firms or individuals – by enhancing their knowledge or reshaping their connections to others.

Knowledge thereby serves as a core resource for the developments of operations and networks (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Foss and Pedersen, 2004; Grant and Phene, 2022). Unlike other resources, knowledge is fluid and does not diminish when transferred or shared (Felin and Hesterly, 2007). A firm that provides knowledge to others would expectedly become more important to the receiving parties, whereas parties developing or integrating knowledge would jointly affect these (Valkokari, 2015).

In how we deal with how various types of networks interact and are interdependent, we can start to understand how knowledge developed, transferred or integrated in one type of network – the social, business network or RSN – would carry impact on knowledge in the other types. The social network knowledge exchange may thereby progress into business insights and developments, for instance (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Pereira and Bamel, 2021).

The connectivity of knowledge among the various networks may be simultaneous but also lagged, making the investigation of RSNs time critical. Furthermore, knowledge may evolve or change in nature as it is transferred or integrated into different types of networks. Hoang and Antoncic (2003) noted the lack of process studies on the role of social bonding in entrepreneurial success. Even less is understood about how different networks interconnect and evolve over time. Therefore, and to echo the paper’s purpose, this paper examines knowledge development across network boundaries.

A longitudinal, retrospective case study was conducted, as this research design enables the exploration of complexities, interrelations and interdependencies while linking observations across units through detailed, in-depth data (Halinen and Törnroos, 2005). As the starting point and based on how both business and social networks are inherent while RSNs are constructed, the case selection geared to finding an appropriate RSN (each company in the RSN would by default have business connections and individuals in the firm would be socially connected, though not necessarily with others in the RSN, making it important to find an RSN rather than a firm with social or business network connections).

RSNs, as recurring initiatives in sparsely populated regions, shaped our focus on such networks in Sweden, a country known for its open data collection environment and accessibility. Sweden has a long-standing tradition of RSNs intended to foster knowledge exchange and identifying opportunities, particularly in its sparsely populated northern areas (Öberg and Lundberg, 2022). In these regions, SMEs rarely engage extensively with other local firms, as their suppliers and customers are often located elsewhere in the country or even abroad (Markgren, 2001; Lundberg and Öberg, 2021). This is especially true for regions with large geographical distances between a small number of SMEs operating across diverse industries, which makes the effects of RSNs distinguishable from other business interactions. In addition, firms in these areas often face challenges in finding the human resources needed for growth and development (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994).

Our selection criteria led us to focus on an RSN located in a region with approximately 376,000 inhabitants spread across 36,000 km² of land (Statistics Sweden, 2018). The region has a higher unemployment rate and a lower proportion of entrepreneurs compared to the national average (Statistics Sweden, 2018), which prompted the creation of the RSN to boost employment and entrepreneurship in the area. The RSN primarily includes manufacturing SMEs across various industries, along with some consultancy firms. Participating firms pay a small membership fee and receive additional funding from the three municipalities that define the geographical and administrative boundaries of the RSN. This funding is allocated to employ a network coordinator who, supported by a board of firm representatives, initiates, coordinates and participates in various operational-level network activities.

The primary data sources include two rounds of semi-structured interviews with key informants from 17 SMEs participating in the RSN and three RSN coordinators (Table 1).

The first round, conducted in 2020, focused on CEOs and was broad in scope, covering various topics related to the RSN. Each interview lasted between 20 and 55 min. In addition, interviews were held with the two RSN coordinators active at the time – one overseeing the overall RSN and the other managing an R&D project. These interviews lasted somewhat less than1 h each.

The second round, conducted in the spring of 2024, involved the new RSN coordinator and eight participants from RSN sub-networks (who had not been part of the first round). These interviews focused on participation in the sub-networks for different professions (typically one sub-network per participant, although some informants from very small firms participated in more than one). Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 min.

Secondary data, including digital information from the RSN’s and firms’ websites and social media accounts, also provided insights into experiences from RSN participation. This data helped to construct timelines, address challenges of post hoc rationalisation and offer details of developments (Huber and Power, 1985; Welch, 2000).

In the data analysis, we first created a description of the RSN’s development over time as an initial case draft. Simultaneously, we coded the interview transcripts and other data sources, focusing on knowledge, network types, interdependencies across networks and the outcomes of interactions. These were categorised as code strings and linked to the respective firms, social ties, RSN and sub-networks. This abstraction of information was compared across data sources, informants and over time, using a pattern-seeking approach. Instances of similar expressions were compared and refined in rounds of empirical abstraction, leading to theorised constructs and aggregate dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013).

We sorted the data from interviews and secondary sources based on whether they referred to social networks, business networks or RSNs. We then categorised the characteristics of these networks as time snippets and over time, using the vocabulary of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) on social network characteristics. By maintaining each initial code string with information on who said it, when it was said (first or second round of interviews), and which network type it related to, we were able to contextualise and identify patterns within and across the units of analysis. The theorising of this paper is grounded in these patterns, which were repeated and reinforced across data sources as overlapping and separate, enabling us to theorise on the antecedents and contextual factors related to each network type, as well as their interrelations.

Decades ago, RSN initiatives were launched in two neighbouring, administrative regions in Sweden. Manufacturing firms and service companies were invited to join, with most of the participants being SMEs, typically with fewer than 100 employees. The two regions were geographically dispersed and sparsely populated, resulting in significant distances between the firms in the RSNs. As a result, many firms had limited knowledge of each other, as they rarely, if ever, interacted. The underlying intention with the two RSNs was to increase interaction among the participating firms, exposing them to new knowledge and business opportunities. In addition, the RSNs sought to stimulate collaboration among firms, for instance regarding recruitment challenges.

For many years, however, little progress was made in these RSNs. Regular meetings were arranged for CEOs of member firms to encourage interaction and knowledge exchange, but several firms chose not to participate extensively. Some firms joined the network only out of solidarity with their region and the other firms within it, but they did not expect much from the RSNs and contributed little. In addition, the long travel distances made participation less appealing, especially for firms in distant locations.

A change came when new CEOs took charge of some firms and joined the RSN steering committees. In 2016, the two RSNs merged. The new RSN now had about 40 participants (and still has at the time of writing this paper in, 2025). The newly formed RSN was led by a coordinator (a consultant) and supported by a steering committee consisting of a small number of highly committed firms. The RSN continued the CEO meetings that had been held in the original RSNs, but new initiatives soon followed, focusing on fostering interaction among individuals with specific roles and professions, hereafter referred to as sub-networks within the RSN, yet with complementary social interactions to the initial RSN, thickening the number of interaction points among the firms from CEOs to include, for instance, communication staff and CFOs. These sub-networks provided opportunities for such employees to interact beyond the CEO level, fostering new points of contact among firms. Member firms who took an interest were free to join these sub-networks and send representatives, but it was also fine to decline.

During the interviews, several CEOs revealed that they faced a lack of knowledgeable employees, as stated by one of them: the knowledge level is low in our firm. Knowledge development and the recruitment of more highly educated employees were pressing issues, especially as few potential candidates were attracted to the sparsely populated region. It is hard when you are not the big well-known firm – who will then apply when seeing an advert? one of the CEOs explained. After discussing these challenges during CEO meetings, the RSN sought and succeeded in securing financial support for a joint recruitment effort aimed at university students specialising in engineering. The firms participated in student recruitment fairs, showcasing the region’s high-tech firms and international business opportunities to attract well-educated employees. They also presented potential thesis topics to engage students. This initiative proved successful and continued even after the external funding ended. One CEO noted that one year we exhibited at a fair on our own and had a very hard time getting a response. The next year we visited the same fair as representatives of the RSN and received a lot of attention from the students. We were able to present a brochure where all graduate thesis opportunities at the RSN’s firms were gathered in the same brochure - it was very much appreciated.

As an extension of their joint recruitment efforts, the firms also introduced a sub-network for trainees in 2016 to increase the region’s attractiveness to university students. In other words, within the RSN, another network was formed, focusing on a specific type of employees. For two years, newly recruited engineers and other key employees of the participating firms visited each other’s sites to get to know the various firms better. At these sites, they attended seminars led by senior employees on topics such as logistics, production techniques, sales and leadership. This initiative was seen as a success and has continued. The participants meet eight times during a period of two years, then a new round is started. One of the firms stated on the RSN website: We used to compete for the same personnel. Now we instead cooperate on increasing the inflow. By 2024, 17 firms participated in this sub-network. Interviewees reported several positive outcomes, such as developing social networks, gaining inspiration for project management and learning about new processing machines. One participant explained: We are manufacturers and if you apply some creativity, there are always things to be learned from how other firms have solved their problems. Furthermore, resulting from their firm presentations, he had been approached by another participant in this sub-network and repeated business exchanged had developed between these firms.

Another, slightly different, initiative was to form a group focusing on developing an R&D project. Although time-consuming, funding for a three-year R&D-project was secured in 2018. This allowed nine firms that chose to participate to get support from university researchers in improving their R&D processes and developing innovation ideas. They also shared information on their work with the other firms’ participants. This collaboration helped strengthen – and, in some cases, establish – a long-term commitment to research and development within their organisations.

In addition, many firm representatives who had previously avoided discussing their challenges outside their own companies realised the benefits of these interactions. One participant admitted that, at first, he saw the other firms as very different and doubted they had much in common. However, he discovered through discussion that when you sit down and start telling you discover that we have the same kind of problems. As mutual trust grew, participants became more open, feeling comfortable sharing not only successes but also mistakes. One participant described this openness as very liberating.

In line with these experiences, a sub-network for R&D engineers was established in 2021 after the project ended. It was intended as a platform for the ongoing exchange of experiences related to research and innovation. Representatives from participating firms met at one firm’s premises, where the host presented their business and a specific challenge they wanted to discuss with the group. These challenges included topics like leading a research project, building internal commitment and fostering collaborations with other actors. In 2023, the group held four meetings.

An informant who had been participating from the start praised the opportunity to get this kind of sub-network that otherwise would have been hard to develop: My friends from university now live quite far from here, it is great to be able to meet in person. We have 70% of our customers in Europe and the rest in the rest of the world, also only a couple of our suppliers are local, so there is seldom any interaction with them.

New applications for R&D projects have been submitted to external funding bodies. A key reason for this progress is that the initial efforts in working together – first for recruitment and later for developing and implementing the R&D initiative – fostered focused collaboration. Through these interactions, participants gained a shared understanding of the value that discussions and partnerships with other regional firms could offer.

The experiences from the first two sub-networks were shared and discussed during the CEO meetings, which led to the decision to continue pursuing this approach. In 2019, a new sub-network was launched for employees handling communication and information tasks. Like the other sub-networks, its participants met on the various firms’ premises to listen to a short presentation on the firm, followed by a presentation on a topic that the hosting firm had decided as relevant, like product launches and branding. In the RNS’s social media reports, various participants underlined the value of this initiative: As the only communicator at my workplace, I find it very interesting to meet and exchange experiences with others who work with the same task as I do; The greatest value for me is all the tangible tips, concreate ideas, tools and programs that we can use to become even better in our communication; We give each other inspiration; and Greats with tips and new perspectives. The interviewees from this sub-network told similar stories and were very much in favour of the initiative: It’s a fantastic way to be able to talk with others in the same situation and learn from each other! The development of social relationships within the group also resulted in contacts taken with individuals between the official meetings, you get to know who knows what. They met about four times/year. It was however noted that the time restrictions in small firms created problems at times: If you are very busy, you may have to miss out, sometimes rather many are missing. In 2023, employees in Human Resource Management were also invited to join this sub-network as many communication challenges were linked to recruitment.

In 2019, a sub-network was created for employees working with enterprise software. The interviews with participants in 2024 expressed positive evaluations regarding the first years, we have received good advice and help from other participants, and one firm wanted to visit us to learn more about our solutions. However, they also clarified that although from the start the intention was to share experiences from different enterprise software, most of them turned out to have a specific system, which thus came to be focused on.

After the initial years with high attention rates and rewarding discussions, the participation dropped, and as another organisation was running a network for the dominating enterprise software, this sub-network was cancelled.

In 2019, a sub-network for CFOs was launched. Participants shared experiences on topics such as warehouse management. In internet posts, one participant highlighted the value of the network: It’s fantastic because you get to know both other CFOs and other companies, you develop a network, so you have someone to discuss with, both big and small things. Another participant stated that we have many common issues to discuss, and we can learn from best practice in different firms.

However, in SMEs, entrepreneurs often act as both managers and CFOs, leaving them with limited time to participate. The challenges of the COVID-19 years further reduced participation and the sub-network’s activity declined.

In 2020, a sub-network for purchasers was created, yielding similar early feedback: I participate to be able to share experiences. However, attendance rates declined as the sub-network’s broad focus across diverse businesses failed to create enough common ground for meaningful interaction.

As a result, in 2022, the purchasers’ sub-network was merged with the CFO sub-network, which was thus also struggling with low attendance. Despite this consolidation, by 2024, the combined sub-network continued to face challenges in maintaining sufficient participation.

Finally, there was the sub-network for the CEOs, initially referred to as the RSN, where representatives from all member firms met about four times a year. At the most recent meeting (at the time of writing), 17 firms were represented. One interviewee, who joined two years ago, secured three new orders at the first meeting he attended. The second meeting was shorter and did not result in any new orders.

Another interviewee praised the chance to exchange experiences and support each other, particularly on staff-related issues: If someone wants to try something new, we don’t see that as a threat anymore but can openly discuss with other firms what positions that would suit this person.

This shift was attributed to a change in atmosphere within the RSN: We have gone from a situation when everybody was scared of opening up on their business to a much greater openness where we help each other out.

The time since the formation of the initial two RSNs is long, but less than eight years have passed since the start of the first major joint initiative, the student employment fair, at the time of writing. After the R&D initiative, which further demonstrated the benefits of cooperation, development has been swift with the creation of new sub-network initiatives. We have learned the methodology, how extremely important it is to anchor the work in local projects that the member firms themselves want to run and believe in, explained one of the firms’ CEOs, who is also involved in managing the RSN.

There is a growing feeling that managers have become more positive about employees changing jobs within the network. The realisation is that this way, competence stays within the region and might one day return to the first employer with more knowledge and experience. There are real examples of staff transitions between firms that happened without hard feelings. This attitude is now being promoted to students and potential employees.

Although the focus was on R&D projects, the interactions within the sub-networks brought about a shift in mindset towards cooperation. The typical business culture had been one of we usually try to manage it on our own, not wanting to show weaknesses or lack of knowledge to others, as explained in both rounds of interviews. After working together and getting to know each other better, members realised there was a lot to gain from cooperation.

The CEOs, who had been the most active in the “main” network and had seen the benefits of the initial initiatives, wanted to pass these insights on to other professions in their firms. One of them said: When you meet in the network, you also become friends in private - which in turn naturally facilitates cooperation. With their experiences and encouragement, the sub-networks were formed. Thanks to their experiences and encouragement, the sub-networks were formed. With this increased interaction between various departments, the RSN’s relationship density has grown significantly and knowledge exchange now happens across different parts of these firms.

The steering committee members assisting the RSN coordinator have also developed strong personal relationships over time. A notable example is how one member invited another to the firm’s board of directors – someone who, before their interaction on the committee, was unknown to the owners. During their conversations, the inviting CEO realised that this individual had led their own firm through a similar development process and, therefore, had valuable experiences to share.

The case study in this paper highlights that establishing relationships in an RSN can initially be challenging high (Huggins, 2001; Thorgren et al., 2009; Cisi et al., 2020 on unsuccessful RSNs). However, once a group of dedicated CEOs engages and facilitates focused interactions – producing tangible results – subsequent obstacles to launching further initiatives diminish significantly. This process has a temporal element, where early successes serve as proof of concept. It is also closely linked to the creation of sub-networks, which enhance connectivity between firms within the RSN.

Although this could be viewed as an outcome of early engagement, it also served to foster further engagement, extending across firms and their employees. This process had notable impacts on knowledge development as well as for the SMEs’ broader business networking activities (Håkansson and Ford, 2002). These dimensions are discussed below.

The creation of the sub-networks of professionals reflects a network density aspect (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), the network density increased as did the commitment (cf. the relational dimension of networks, Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). This, in turn, boosted knowledge exchange and development. In the case of the CEOs’ joint partaking and the ripple effects leading to new sub-networks, the focus was on social networks as part of an RSN. More precisely, each sub-network established social networks among professionals of a specific type, with each professional being part of the participating firms. These sub-networks, in relation to the RSN members (the firm CEOs) and the other sub-networks, formed parallel structures when viewed from a social network perspective.

At the same time, the various sub-networks contributed to increasing and strengthening the firm-level social ties among the RSN firms, with multiple social touchpoints of each firm, increasing density in that aspect. As a result, the sub-networks developed into cross-company connections at the individual level, which, within each firm, linked these sub-networks together, creating a matrix of increased engagement. The constellations thereby became vertical and horizontal movements in terms of new networks: social networks vertically from the CEOs to other firm positions driving further social networks horizontally among individuals at the same organisational position while representing different firms.

Thus, we theorise that matrix social networks lead to increased firm-level social network density (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and that the sub-networks enhanced knowledge sharing possibilities among various professions. The interrelation between the various sub-networks and overarching RSN thus occurred within the partaking firms while all bonds were social. Structurally, this is not different to how business relationships would normally rely on multiple firm representatives, from the buying as well as the selling organisation (Webster and Wind, 1972). In an RSN, this is not well captured in past research (Eklinder-Frick and Åge, 2017; Martins and Ling, 2017; Öberg and Lundberg, 2022).

Notably, the horizontal knowledge exchange among within-profession peers shifts the focus away from buying or selling to individual-level goals. Although this may create weaker links to regional or firm-level growth and entrepreneurship (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006), it places the onus on individual firms to monitor the outcomes. Firms must assess not only CEOs’ involvement in fostering sub-networks but also how knowledge from these networks is integrated into organisational practices.

During the RSN, new sub-networks were formed, with earlier ones legitimising such formations and thereby linking to the cognitive dimension of networks (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The profession-based sub-networks were important among individuals that were placed at lower organisational levels compared to the CEOs. They facilitated in-person interaction and fruitful discussions that would not have occurred otherwise, fostering knowledge exchange and enhancing work performance.

Notably, the sub-networks facilitated more focused discussions, enabling participants to learn not only from presentations but also from each other. The various interaction opportunities within the RSN – such as the CEO network, the R&D project, the sub-networks and the steering committee supporting the RSN coordinator – contributed to knowledge development of the firms.

It is well established that firm interactions are crucial sources of knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Foss and Pedersen, 2004; Grant and Phene, 2022). Within each horizontal sub-network, knowledge was exchanged among members on issues specific to their profession, particularly in the context of operating in a sparsely populated region. In this way, the fact that the firms were not complementary from a business point of view (Andrésen et al., 2012) became less important, as CFOs, communicators and others were more focused on addressing challenges tied to their shared contextual circumstances than on fostering business partnerships.

Though the sub-networks and based on how their members were empowered in their professional roles (cf. how the CEOs initially found knowledge to be low among employees) and took knowledge from the sub-networks in-house into their organisations, the firms accessed new knowledge. Moreover, there was a change in attitude as an increasing number of managers and employees learned about the potential benefits of interacting with other firms. Specifically, the various sub-networks not only impacted the RSN as a whole but also improved interactions within the participating firms, driving knowledge creation and development, which potentially benefited the region (Mouzas et al., 2008; Veal and Mouzas, 2010; Ford and Mouzas, 2013 on various levels of networks, direct and indirect connections).

When the knowledge was integrated within the organisations, it fostered a more democratised approach to networking (i.e. strategising) (Håkansson and Ford, 2002; Mouzas, 2006; Öberg et al., 2012, 2016) within business networks. This shift moved the process from managers unilaterally inscribing strategies into firms (Öberg et al., 2012) to a model where strategising emerged from shared visions. Compared to descriptions of interactive networks that cannot be controlled by individual firms, the democratised approach to networking rather focuses on the processes within each firm, where strategising emerges from shared insights that shape the firm’s behaviour towards other parties. This approach adds a micro perspective to the existing understanding of managers’ strategising in a network context (Öberg et al., 2012). The case, namely, illustrates how CEOs discussed strategies and experiences at the firm level, whereas professionals developed competence and established connections within their areas of expertise. This created a unique form of organisational inscriptions (Öberg et al., 2012), where multiple firm representatives provided insights into firm networking. This, in turn, helped to reduce uncertainty (Ford and Mouzas, 2010) by connecting various aspects of social network structures to how firms developed their understanding of their businesses.

This paper examined knowledge development across network boundaries, incorporating both a temporal dimension of development processes and the interactions among networks related to knowledge. The following questions were asked in the introduction: How are different networks related and changed during the course of an RSN? What are the implications for knowledge development? The paper importantly highlights how various networks are interlinked and interdependent and how this is not only about social and business networks and RSNs affecting each other but also how social networks within the realm of the RSN – the sub-networks – legitimise further networking both horizontally across firms and vertically within each participating firm. Consequences are a matrix network of social interactions and a democratised networking relative the firm strategising, while simultaneously empowering individuals in their professional roles. In terms of the network structures (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), density suggests being important for knowledge transfer and development. Meanwhile, this density is the consequence of trust and legitimacy in the relational and cognitive dimensions of networks.

This paper theorised the processual development of RSNs, with a specific focus on the creation and role of sub-networks. It conceptualised matrixed networking – a structure linking horizontal sub-networks through democratised organisations – thereby, which is rare in the business-to-business and RSN research, alike, including the within-firm networking to understanding how knowledge transfers and under what conditions. Furthermore, the paper highlighted how strategic inscriptions emerge as outcomes of horizontal knowledge exchanges, demonstrating how strategies become collective constructs shaped by the perceptions of multiple parties. This shift reflects a new, inclusive way of interaction also within firms (Ford and Mouzas, 2010; Öberg et al., 2012). By linking structured and organically developed networks across various levels of networking (Ford and Mouzas, 2013) and horizontal dimensions, the study provides an integrated perspective on the interplay between different types of networks.

This paper indicates the significant long-term roles RSNs can play. Although the primary business successes may not directly impact the bottom line, they are evident in areas such as recruitment and knowledge development – both of which are critical for firms in sparsely populated regions. For managers, both the multi-tie approach for RSNs suggests being important as does the need to actively maintain and engage in network activities. These insights challenge existing notions of RSNs, offering a more content-rich yet flexible and sustainable approach to their implementation.

For policymakers, the organisation of RSNs with sub-networks provides valuable insights into strengthening such initiatives and fostering individual commitment – not only to the RSN itself but also to the broader region. Essentially, this involves building structures that foster connections across firms and enhance knowledge sharing beyond the CEO level.

For SMEs, the RSN served as a catalyst for creating more inclusive internal organisations. The case SMEs were all quite sceptical to openness and sharing knowledge from start. However, the horizontal knowledge sharing within the sub-networks, coupled with the multiple connections established across firms, fostered a greater openness to networking both internally and externally. Although it remains unclear whether openness led to the success of the sub-networks or vice versa, the concept of openness itself – and how it can be cultivated – emerges as a critical factor and is something SME managers need to consider benefitting from knowledge transfer initiatives.

For future research, it is essential to explore additional RSNs, focusing on their long-term development and the subsequent impact on firms, business networks and regions. It is also of interest to compare the current findings with constructed nets (Möller and Halinen, 2017) located in prime city locations, industry-specific nets and cross-country contexts. Up-north Sweden being something of a specific case with its sparse population and geographical positioning at a distance to customers but also national and international level hubs of business, means that it is important to include other regions nationally and internationally in future studies. This all to expand on, verify but also challenge those findings presented in this paper while dealing with its empirical limitations.

The authors wish to convey their appreciation to the Editors and anonymous Reviewers for their constructive, supportive, and helpful comments during the revision process of this paper.