Table 2 Relational positions in project... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Relational positions in project consortium. A scale

Level	Relational position/Influence	Core meaning	Typical characteristics	Expected capacity to shape consortium dynamics	Main theoretical basis
1	Core-Central Actor	Highest structural and political influence within the consortium	Coordinator or lead partner; frequent interactions with many actors; controls agendas, routines, and strategic decisions	Very High	Freeman (1979), Provan et al. (2007)
2	Broker/Boundary-Spanner	Influential through connecting otherwise separate actors or subgroups	Mediates conflicts; transfers information across WPs/countries; often strong informal power without formal authority	High	Burt (1992), Tushman and Scanlan (1981)
3	Semi-Central Operational Actor	Relevant influence based on key deliverables or technical leadership	WP leader; regular interaction with core actors; recognised expertise but limited consortium-wide control	Medium–High	Gulati (1998)
4	Semi-Peripheral Specialist	Selective influence concentrated in niche expertise	Participates mainly in thematic tasks; limited governance role; consulted when specialist input is needed	Medium	Hardy and Phillips (1998)
5	Peripheral Actor	Low embeddedness and weak strategic influence	Task-specific participation; few ties; interacts mainly for reporting or assigned outputs	Low	Granovetter (1985), Provan et al. (2007)
6	Isolated/Symbolic Partner	Formal member with minimal actual integration	Rare participation; weak deliverable ownership; included mainly for legitimacy, representation, or visibility	Very Low	Meyer and Rowan (1977)

Level	Relational position/Influence	Core meaning	Typical characteristics	Expected capacity to shape consortium dynamics	Main theoretical basis
1	Core-Central Actor	Highest structural and political influence within the consortium	Coordinator or lead partner; frequent interactions with many actors; controls agendas, routines, and strategic decisions	Very High	Freeman (1979), Provan et al. (2007)
2	Broker/Boundary-Spanner	Influential through connecting otherwise separate actors or subgroups	Mediates conflicts; transfers information across WPs/countries; often strong informal power without formal authority	High	Burt (1992), Tushman and Scanlan (1981)
3	Semi-Central Operational Actor	Relevant influence based on key deliverables or technical leadership	WP leader; regular interaction with core actors; recognised expertise but limited consortium-wide control	Medium–High	Gulati (1998)
4	Semi-Peripheral Specialist	Selective influence concentrated in niche expertise	Participates mainly in thematic tasks; limited governance role; consulted when specialist input is needed	Medium	Hardy and Phillips (1998)
5	Peripheral Actor	Low embeddedness and weak strategic influence	Task-specific participation; few ties; interacts mainly for reporting or assigned outputs	Low	Granovetter (1985), Provan et al. (2007)
6	Isolated/Symbolic Partner	Formal member with minimal actual integration	Rare participation; weak deliverable ownership; included mainly for legitimacy, representation, or visibility	Very Low	Meyer and Rowan (1977)

Source(s): Authors' own elaboration