Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 3
CONTEMPORARY NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS IN SLOVENIA
Jure Kovač
University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences 
Kidričeva 55a, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia
Jure.Kovac@fov.uni‐mb.si
Brigita Gajšek
University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistic
Mariborska cesta 7, 3000 Celje, Slovenia
Brigita.Gajsek@fl.uni‐mb.si
Abstract
Modern organisations are confronted with enormous challenges. The need to continuously adapt to changing envi‐
ronments represents a main challenge for modern organisations. In order to adapt to the requirements of modern
environments more easily and more rapidly, organisations become connected into networks. A network organisation
is fast becoming a favourite form of the modern organisation. On the basis of an analysis of members in the field of
network organisations, this contribution presents the dimensions and definitions of network organisations. In the fol‐
low‐up, the starting point for a theoretical explanation of network organisations and their different existing forms is
presented. The emphasis of the empirical part of the contribution focuses on presenting an analysis of forms of network
organisations that are present in Slovenia from the perspective of their shape, development and actual state. Based
on an analysis of relevant documentation, it may be concluded that it was the institutional environment which initiated
and directed the start‐up processes that led to the establishment of contemporary network organisations within Slove‐
nia.
Keywords: organisation, network organisation, types of network organisations, Slovenia
1. INTRODUCTION 
Our modern environment is becoming more
and more complex while its dynamics are becoming
more intensified. Both profit and non‐profit organ‐
isations must continuously analyse conditions in
their working environments and adapt to changing
circumstances. In 2011, the Boston Consulting
Group carried out an extensive international re‐
search project through which it sought to identify
the most important problems that managers are
confronted with on a daily basis, while also identi‐
fying the greatest challenges faced by managers in
future. 1,600 managers from 35 countries partici‐
pated in this research entitled Organization of the
Future – Designed to Win (2011). Managers’ re‐
sponses on the survey question – ˝In your opinion,
which are the most important problems today that
will also be your biggest challenges tomorrow?˝ ‐
are presented below in Figure 1.
One of the main reasons for increased competi‐
tiveness in the business environment is globalization.
Above all, certain processes inherent to globalization
require managers to analyse and reassess the strate‐
gic orientations of their companies as well as to de‐
velop appropriate and effective methods of action
(Daft, 2010: 202; Kovač, 2011: 211).
Vol. 3, No. 2, 3‐20
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
4
As indicated in the table above, the next two
largest issues of concern in the modern business en‐
vironment have been identified as unpredictability
and complexity. As a result of increasing complexity,
the stable organisational structure of a company can
also become a major obstacle when adjusting to
changing demands in its operational environment.
This is the reason companies seek more flexible
forms of organisation that are better suited to rapidly
adjust to changing demands in their respective envi‐
ronments (Williams, 2009: 80; Bleicher, 2011: 41). 
It is often the case that in the process of build‐
ing a company’s competitive ability, its existent
knowledge, capacities and other elements are
found to be insufficient. In the modern business en‐
vironment, companies and other organisations will
establish and preserve their competitive advantage
not only by optimising their own capacities, but also
by being able to use the elements of other compa‐
nies and introduce these into an integral business
system. The need to interlink companies and bring
together their abilities arises from the requirement
of the global market to achieve price, time and qual‐
ity competitiveness. It is more difficult for an indi‐
vidual company to cope with the above mentioned
requirements alone. This is why companies are be‐
coming increasingly specialized and develop only
those key areas with which they can (effectively)
compete on the global market (Milberg & Schuh,
2002: 21; Josserand, 2004: 3; Kieser & Walgenbach,
2010: 2; Bleicher, 2011: 56).
The reason for interconnectedness among in‐
dividual companies lies not only in the purpose of
achieving competitive advantage on the basis of op‐
timising the process of creating added value. At the
forefront, there are also requirements to integrate
the client and the user in the process of creating
new value itself. This is why the linear sequence of
the single stages of the process directed to create
added value increasingly change into vertically and
horizontally branched networks of interconnected
links among different companies, as well as among
other organisations and individuals that take part in
the entire added value chain. (Prahalad & Ra‐
maswamy, 2004: 96; Everett, 2011: 1). As a result,
competitors come together in fields of common in‐
terest and along a narrow segment of the process
that is directed towards creating added value and
Figure 1. In your managers’ opinions, what are the most important problems that managers face today
which also represent their greatest challenges for tomorrow?
Source: Organization of the Future – Designed to Win, 2011: 6
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 5
bringing about network connections (Gibbert & Du‐
rand, 2007: 3).
It has been known for some time that different
forms of links set up among companies and other
organisations have features that are inherent to net‐
working. Yet, over the last decade, network forms
have gained new momentum (Gulati et al., 2000:
204; Kovač, 2011: 214). The above mentioned envi‐
ronmental factors as well as development of infor‐
mation and communications technology have
contributed to a vast expansion of different forms
of network links among companies. In addition,
there also exist mutual connections with environ‐
mental requirements and particularly with those re‐
quirements of the market (market pull) that, under
the pressure of global tendencies and structural
changes, as well as due to new possibilities that are
offered by new information and communication
technology (technology push) require and allow
companies and other organisations to develop a
new and more adjustable network form of the or‐
ganisation (Rohde et al., 2001: 1; Steinmann, H. &
Schreyögg, 2005: 145; Schermerhorn, 2010: 246;
Rozman & Kovač, 2012: 264).
Gomez, a renowned author from the field of
business sciences, had in 1992 already stated that
network organisations represent a new stage in the
evolution of company organisation and bring about
a renaissance in the field of organisational theory
(Gomez, 1992). Kelly (1998) also defined network
organisations as the prevailing organisational forms
of today and tomorrow. Since then until today, his
prophetic predictions have been confirmed. In the
environment – meaning also our environment – we
are increasingly confronted with different forms of
network organisations and network links that are
prevalent among companies and organisations and
which have the tendency to continuously expand.
On the other hand, we come across authors who
argue that network companies belong to an organ‐
isational form that has already been in existence
for a long period of time and does not conse‐
quently represent a novelty. Regardless of different
opinions, it is reasonable to acknowledge that net‐
work organisations ‐ which distinguish themselves
by having very diverse forms of existence – are an
organisational concept of both the present and
 future. 
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Defining Network Organisations
In academic literature, the network organisa‐
tion has been a central point of interest since the
beginning of the nineties of the previous century.
Already at the end of the eighties, Jarillo had de‐
fined the network organisation as a long term tar‐
get‐oriented linkage among individual companies
for the purpose of achieving competitive advantage
over competitors that do not take part in the net‐
work (Jarillo, 1988: 32).
A similar statement was made by Sydow (1992:
23), who defined networking among companies as
“target‐oriented organisational forms that pursue
the realisation of certain competitive advantages.
They mutually link independent companies that are
economically integrated and have relatively stable
mutual links.” Other authors such as Daft have also
emphasized the achievement of greater competitive
advantage as feasible by means of individual com‐
panies specializing in a part of the network. Compa‐
nies and other organisations that are interlinked in
the network can increase their competitive advan‐
tage by orienting themselves in the specialization of
a particular field which they have already perfectly
mastered in the past (Daft, 2000: 252).
In his definitions, DiMaggio above all stresses
the novelty of network organisations in the sense of
moving away from the classical comprehension and
perception of the organisation. In his opinion, trust,
reciprocity, communication, a common way etc., are
more in the forefront of network forms, while the
principles of the bureaucratic approach central in
their formation is less important (DiMaggio, 2001:
237).
We find similar definitions of network organi‐
sations in even more recent works from the field of
management. For example, Bleicher describes net‐
work organisations (with an emphasis on virtual di‐
mensions) as extremely dynamic and fluid forms of
organisational links which have great potential for
the exchange of ideas, information and resources
(Bleicher, 2011: 321). 
Conversely, Hatch (2013: 281) defines network
organisations as ”non‐hierarchical relationships
comprised of human points of contact, called
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
6
nodes… Organisationally, network links headquar‐
ters with subsidiaries, and units with each other,
their stakeholders and their employees”.
From the above cited definitions, it may be con‐
cluded that network organisations are special forms
of co‐operation and/or connectedness among indi‐
vidual companies and other organisations (Kovač,
2011: 21; Rozman & Kovač, 2012: 267). The funda‐
mental features of the network organisations are as
follows (Winkler, 1998: 2; Vahs, 2005: 507; Gibbert
& Durand, 2007: 172; Kieser & Walgenbach, 2010:
289; Bleicher, 2011: 322; Hatch, 2013: 283):
• they represent a special form of co‐operation
among organisations;
• operators of linking and co‐operation may be very
diverse: groups in the organisations, organisations
and/or group of organisations;
• mutual adjustment among individual operators is
performed through hierarchical as well as through
market relationships;
• there is mutual linking and common interest
among operators;
• trust is an important element of co‐ordination
among linking operators;
• organisations link among each other both verti‐
cally and horizontally;
• participating organisations are (or may be) eco‐
nomically independent;
• for adjustment and functioning of the network,
an independent and institutionalized form of the
organisation or merely an informal organisation
can be established;
• information and communication technology rep‐
resents an important element in connecting and
adjustment;
• complex mutual links are established in different
fields (information, personnel, technology, fi‐
nances, etc.);
• there are both dynamic and stable links;
• basic features are: decentralisation, diffusion of
power and competency of decision making. 
Organisations may establish links from very dif‐
ferent interests and targets. This is why we come
across networking among for‐profit organisations as
well as among non‐profit ones. 
2.2 Theoretical Starting Points for
Comprehending Network Organisations
In order to understand network organisations,
we must look for a theoretical starting point and ex‐
amine different explanations that attempt to explain
the functioning of the organisational phenomenon.
As a social phenomenon, the organisation is an ob‐
ject of study in various scientific disciplines and pro‐
fessions. This is why the theory of network
organisations should be considered as the result of
single partial theories that offer an explanation per‐
taining to laws that govern the functioning of net‐
working. There exist efforts to establish a unified
theory of networking, but this approach is not gen‐
erally accepted and so remains at the level of one
single explanation (Sydow, 1992; Alstyne, 1997;
Fleisch, 2001; Gibbert & Durand, 2007; Berghoff &
Sydow, 2007; Kieser & Walgenbach, 2010; Mo‐
literno & Mahoney, 2011: 443; Hatch, 2013). Trans‐
action cost theory remains the single most
important theory from which we may draw a theo‐
retical explanation for the functioning of network
organisations. 
Transaction cost theory provides a basic expla‐
nation on the existence and development of the
company. In the framework of transaction cost the‐
ory, the most prominent representatives ‐ Coase
(1937) and Williamson (1985, 1991, and 1993)
among others ‐ discover a link between transaction
costs and a company’s organisational form. Trans‐
action cost theory provides a model explanation for
allocating task or element co‐ordination, by means
of attempting to clarify the reasons as to why cer‐
tain transactions are co‐ordinated and carried out
by a company, while others are performed by the
market. 
The starting point of research conducted under
the conduit of transaction cost theory presents the
processes of exchange and mutual adjustment that
are prevalent among different types of specialized
operators in the economic process. Emphasis is
placed not only on the process of the exchange of
goods, but rather, on the so‐called transaction that
is linked to this process. Among other costs, partic‐
ipants in the transaction framework must bear the
so‐called costs of the transaction itself (Picot et al.,
1999: 67; Berghoff & Sydow, 2007: 19).
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 7
Basically, transaction costs are all those costs
that are incurred by individual operators while per‐
forming the transaction process, during:
• the preparatory phase (for example, travel, com‐
munication and consulting expenses, common
purchasing costs incurred by sales, development
and production);
• communication (for example, negotiation costs,
the costs of mutual adjustment during sales, de‐
velopment, production and purchase);
• execution (controlling the process of exchange,
managerial costs);
• control (costs of quality control and costs of time‐
limit control);
• adjustment (additional costs incurred over time‐
limit changes, quality and other unforeseen re‐
quirements) (Picot et al., 1999: 67; Fleisch, 2001:
62; Jones & Bouncken, 2008: 37; Kieser & Walgen‐
dach, 2010: 48). 
Within the organisation, an entire range of fac‐
tors has an impact on the decision of whether to
leave certain transactions to the market or to the hi‐
erarchy. In considering major factors on which to
base the decision of what is the most suitable form
of organisational arrangement, transaction cost the‐
ory also includes a degree of vertical specificity of
the single task. In highly specific transactions, the
most optimal form of co‐ordination is the hierarchy.
At the medium level of co‐ordination, this could be
a hybrid form (co‐operation), whereas at a low level
of specificity, it is the market form. 
By way of comparison, we can make an analogy
of transaction costs, with losses incurred as a result
of friction in the field of physics. Within economic
systems, information technology decreases losses
that are incurred by ˝friction˝. According to Malone
(2004), the introduction of information technology
decreases both fixed and variable costs. While re‐
search related to transaction cost theory is above all
oriented to analysing processes governing exchange
and adjustment in the economy, we can also use this
theoretical framework to explain ̋ correct˝ work dis‐
tribution and specialization (Picot et al., 1999: 73;
Kieser & Walgendach, 2010: 50). 
Work distribution may be classified among ele‐
ments that contribute to increased efficiency of the
economic process. Specialization and work distribu‐
tion enable an essential increase in productivity. At
the same time, work distribution imposes a require‐
ment for co‐ordination and mutual interconnected‐
ness. Co‐ordination does not run by itself but is
instead connected to various elements. Costs that
are incurred as a consequence of performing a co‐
ordinated effort are designated as transaction costs
(or co‐ordination costs).
A common task that a company (or a group of
individuals) wish to carry out in the process of work
distribution may be classified according to different
criteria. To a great extent, the productivity of an or‐
ganisation will depend on the process of decompo‐
sition (work distribution). While transaction cost
theory does not assist in directly explaining the sin‐
gular process of forming the technical work distri‐
bution, it does remain useful for the purpose of
investigating transaction costs that have consequen‐
tially been incurred and that are inappropriately in‐
creasing as a result of technical work distribution.
From this, it arises that transaction cost theory rec‐
ommends carrying out a process of decomposition
of a common task in such a way that it would, to the
largest possible extent, form transactions (links)
among performers of partial tasks (these could also
be clients or suppliers) with lowest effort (cost) re‐
quired for its completion (Picot et al., 1999: 73;
Jones & Bouncken, 2008: 189). 
The higher is the level of interdependence
among singular levels in carrying out a common
task, the greater is the requirement to integrate into
a common organisational unit. The lower is the level
of interdependence, the greater is the degree of au‐
tonomy of the organisational decentralisation (Picot
et al., 1999: 74; Jones & Bouncken, 2008: 193;
Kieser & Walgendach, 2010: 51). An important ele‐
ment of an efficient execution of the work distribu‐
tion process is the need to optimally design
knowledge transfer ‐ from the knowledge operator
to the performer of the single partial task. In an era
when knowledge plays an increasingly significant
role within society and within organisations, design‐
ing knowledge transfer to operators of a single par‐
tial task is of growing importance. Providing the
necessary knowledge to carry out partial tasks can
significantly reduce costs that are otherwise in‐
curred by the lack of knowledge that is required to
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
8
effectively carry out a single partial task. Using an
optimally organized process of knowledge transfer
can assure a suitable transfer of necessary knowl‐
edge between the knowledge operator and the per‐
former of the single partial task.
The positive aspect of introducing IT is predom‐
inantly reflected in the processes of creating, trans‐
mitting and applying information. In this way,
information processes rationalise and speed up by
means of modern information and communications
technology. Sped‐up and rationalised information
and communication processes significantly decrease
transaction costs while they also reduce the level of
technical work distribution. The tendency of mod‐
ern society to reduce the level of technical work dis‐
tribution is based not so much on the humanist
principle as it is on the introduction of modern in‐
formation and communications technology. 
The contribution of transaction cost theory to
the understanding of principles that govern the
functioning of the network organisation lies in its
ability to comprehensively explain the extension of
interconnectedness among individual organisations
(or individuals) from the perspective of transactions
that take place among them and with particular em‐
phasis on explaining and understanding transaction
costs that are linked to the form of co‐ordination.
Transaction cost theory therefore provides a theo‐
retical explanation of the network organisation gen‐
esis. By means of transaction theory, an explanation
establishing the impact of introducing modern in‐
formation and communications technology may
also be developed. From the given conclusion, there
also arises an explanation that is related to the top‐
icality of organisation network links over the last
decade. A great development of information and
communications technology and the expansion of
its application has enabled (also from the perspec‐
tive of decreasing transaction costs) the propaga‐
tion of networking in modern society.
2.3 Existing Forms of Inter‐Organisational
Network Links 
The term “network link” arises in diverse areas
of academic literature. At the organisational level,
reference is often made to network links across dif‐
ferent levels and areas (Miles & Snow, 1992; Sydow,
1992; Nohria & Eccles, 1992; Ebers, 1997; Staehle,
1999; Bullinger et al., 2003, Sydow & Manning,
2006; Jones & Bouncken, 2008; Kieser & Walgen‐
bach, 2010; Bleicher, 2011; Hatch, 2013). 
The basic division of existing forms of network
links arises from the level of linking. There exist two
levels of network linking (networking). The first rep‐
resents co‐operation and linking among individual
organisations (inter‐organisational networks). The
second represents the form of organisation within
the company itself and the respective configuration
of the organisational structure (the configuration of
the intra‐organisational network). 
In the follow‐up, we will focus on the presenta‐
tion of links among organisations (at the inter‐or‐
ganisational level).
Network links among organisations are in
greater part related to the legal and statutory
arrangement governing the functioning of individual
companies and other organisations within a given
environment. Given the Republic of Slovenia’s legal
and statutory arrangements, network links on the
basis of capital and contractual links are prevalent
in Slovenia. (Kovač, 2011: 220; Rozman & Kovač,
2012: 267). 
In Slovenia, the best known forms of companies
and/or organisations that are linked on the basis of
capital or contract are (Bohinc & Ivanjko, 1999: 405):
• commercial association of interest: an independ‐
ent legal entity whose activity is promoting the
economic benefit of its members, however, with‐
out relationship of superiority or dependence;
• holding company: an interlinked company that
has in its possession a majority of shares of one
or more independent companies and which pre‐
dominantly performs the financing and corporate
governance activities of those companies.
• trust, composed of (Bohinc & Ivanjko, 1999: 406): 
    ‐ one governing and one or more dependent
companies that are linked among themselves
and under a unified administration of the gov‐
erning company (real trust);
    ‐ companies that are interlinked by a contract on
governance (contractual trust);
    ‐ legally independent companies that are linked
by a single management system where compa‐
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 9
nies are not mutually interdependent (trust of
equally entitled).
The second aspect is represented by contractu‐
ally linked networking that is composed of the cap‐
ital of non‐interlinked companies or other
organisations that form (or do not form) for the pur‐
pose of linking and co‐ordinating a network or a
common independent organisation. 
The above mentioned very decentralised form
of networking is represented by the so‐called enter‐
prise network which represents ˝intermediate˝ or‐
ganisational forms of economic activities between
the market and the hierarchy that are characterised
by a stable co‐operative (rather than a competitive)
collaboration of capital independent companies. An
analysis of the business environment indicates that
the following forms of contemporary networking
among companies and other organisations are
prevalent in Slovenia on the basis of capital or con‐
tractual relations (Kovač, 2011: 220; Rozman &
Kovač, 2012: 267): clusters, technology platforms,
competence centres and centres of excellence as
well as living labs. These forms best correspond to
the criteria inherent to contemporary network or‐
ganisation, including: equality of partners, decen‐
tralization, non‐hierarchy, etc. The empirical part
focuses on the above mentioned forms of contem‐
porary network organisations, analysing the devel‐
opment process from their establishment to their
current state.
3. FORMS OF NETWORK ORGANISATIONS
IN SLOVENIA
3.1 Introduction
The empirical part is based on principles of in‐
stitutional theories of organisation‐environment re‐
lations which, among other principles, assume that
institutions within a particular environment have a
decisive impact on organisational change and adap‐
tation (Mihelčič, 2011: 138; Hatch, 2013: 74). We
hypothesize that it was the institutional environ‐
ment which initiated start‐up processes that led to
the establishment of contemporary network organ‐
isations within Slovenia and test this hypothesis uti‐
lizing the method of documentation analysis. In
Slovenia, there dominate network connections
among companies and other organisations that
have been established by the policies and financial
initiatives of state institutions. 
Strong links are critical for the performance of
innovation systems. The Slovenian government has
recognised the need for promoting links in innova‐
tion, notably between industrial sectors and aca‐
demic institutions. Over the past 15 years, the
government has introduced a significant number of
policy initiatives designed to better align innovation
actors. In so doing, it has introduced various schemes
for scientific‐industrial collaboration, technology
transfer and related initiatives focused on entrepre‐
neurship and inter‐firm co‐operation. Slovenia has
also experimented with cluster‐oriented policies and
later also with Technology Platforms. Between 2008
and 2013, Competence Centres and Centres of Excel‐
lence were added to this list. The latter are not only
instruments that may be used to strengthen links be‐
tween innovation actors but also important catalysts
for changing the governance of the innovation sys‐
tem. Below is a brief description of all of the above
listed instruments.
3.2 Clusters
The most typical example of regional network
formation is a cluster, which is fully geographically
oriented, less loose and more stable than strategic
network formations that are often transnationally or‐
ganized. A cluster is understood as a production/ser‐
vice system that includes: small and medium sized
manufacturers of finished products and services; spe‐
cialized suppliers of components; manufacturers of
complementary products/services; providers of tools
and supplementary service companies with comple‐
mentary skills, know‐how and technologies; govern‐
ment institutions; research and consultancy
institutions and customers/clients in a specific area
of operation (Dermastia, 2002).
From a global perspective, clusters obtained
their knowledge and bases from supply chains that
had been established much earlier and may also be
classified as non‐capital contractual forms of net‐
working among companies. The theoretical bases of
supply chains and clusters can be traced to the work
of Michael Porter, who in his piece The Competitive
Advantage of Nations (1990) highlights the level,
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
10
development and promotion of inter‐company con‐
nections as important elements for achieving com‐
petitive advantage in the economies of individual
countries.
In Slovenia, clusters are recognized as network
connections between companies in a particular sec‐
tor. Due to its small size and prevailing market
trends, regional clusters have not developed in
Slovenia. 
Integration among companies can result in in‐
creased business efficiency, the modernization of
production rationalization of operations, an in‐
crease in growth and development and increasing
innovation (Dermastia, 2002).
The development of clusters in Slovenia is de‐
scribed below in greater detail.
3.2.1 Initializing the Development of Clusters 
According to a survey (Jaklič, Svetina &
Zagoršek, 2004) that included 1,700 companies, no
clusters were present in Slovenia in 1999 (Dermas‐
tia, 2002). Given that companies were spread across
Slovenia, segments identified as potential clusters
did not have a strong geographical concentration
and consequentially, there existed weak links
among actors. Identified manufacturing/service sys‐
tems did not reach a critical mass of companies
while the necessary infrastructure for the develop‐
ment of clusters remained at initial stages.
Clusters later emerged due to government pol‐
icy that effectively resulted in the establishement of
network organisations, as opposed to the removal
of obstacles for the development of small business
(due to the implementation of high interest rates;
high taxes; extremely expensive business premises;
difficulties in obtaining building permits; impossibil‐
ity of financing commercial properties...).
Conversely, in 2001, the Ministry of the Economy
(ME) prepared a program that was designed to en‐
courage the development of clusters in Slovenia and,
during that same year, the ME financially supported
the development of three pilot clusters by providing
a contribution of 150 million SIT to this end. In prac‐
tice, some difficulties in promoting cluster develop‐
ment and establishing simultaneous cooperation and
competition between actors arose. For example, a
low level of trust among members of the cluster, a
low level of top management involvement in the
clustering project and lack of state‐level integrated
implementation of measures required for stimulating
the development of clusters.
Tender
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Region
Small Enterprise Medium Enterprise Total
Number
of Projects Co‐financing
Number
of Projects Co‐financing
Number
of Projects Fund
Development of Clusters
by Region 5 231,926,000 6 168,074,000 11 400,000,000
Podravje 1 85,000,000 FS UM
Koroška 1 16,600,000 Lesna d.d.
Savinjska 3 36,337,000 Geodetski zavod d.o.o., Smreka d.o.o., Veplas d.d.
Obalno‐kraško 1 100,000,000 Transportno logistični grozd
Osrednja Slovenija 3 123,863,000 Slovenski avtomobilski grozd, Infotehna d.o.o.,Kovinastroj Gastronom d.d.
Notranjsko kraško 1 16,600,000 IMP Klima d.o.o.
Goriško 1 21,600,000 Razvojni center za lesarstvo
Zasavje, Pomurje, Spodnje Posavje, Gorenjska, JV Slovenija – 0 projects
Source: Summarized from Andrič, 2003
Table 1. Distribution of Funds for Clustering in 2002
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 11
3.2.2 A Period of Co‐financing and Growth 
Between 2002 and 2004, the ME continued to
encourage clustering and presented a comprehen‐
sive program that promoted the development of en‐
trepreneurship and competitiveness (Andrič, 2003).
The program of measures to promote entrepreneur‐
ship and competitiveness included incentives that
were aimed at the entire corporate sector, irrespec‐
tive of size, sector of activity or ownership. Based
on this program, 23 tenders were published in 2002,
including a tender for the development of clusters
(Table 1). 
Interest in subsidization was higher than was the
level of available funds. As a result, 38.88% (or 7)
project proposals were rejected for receipt of subsi‐
dizing in support of the development of clusters.
Jaklič et al. (2004) reported: “After four years of
co‐financing of cluster development, which aimed
at about 2.141 billion SIT (Table 2) in the sense of
development incentives, 29 clusters were devel‐
oped and together included about 390 organisa‐
tions and employed more than 60,000 people.
Companies in clusters in terms of profitability and
added value did not significantly differ from other
companies in the industry.”
nanc, 2003). In the period 2000‐2003, Slovenian
clusters outgrew basic frameworks and pointed at a
rapid growth trend. It had already then been ob‐
served that the growth trend may have negatively
affected the abolition of subsidies and incentives for
clustering and development of projects of national
importance. In 2004, 1 billion SIT was made avail‐
able for this purpose. 
In addition to financial support from the ME,
the Chamber of Commerce created non‐financial
structures designed to support of this strategy. In so
doing, the Chamber responded to members’ needs
for horizontal integration by stimulating promo‐
tional activities. At first, clusters focused on those
companies and/or organisations that wished to in‐
tegrate and link because of synergistic effects, irre‐
spective of government subsidies. Members of
clusters later argued that government measures en‐
couraged a process that would otherwise not have
taken place and that meetings would continue even
in the event that government support were to
cease. 75% of clusters would not have been formed
without the support of the ME (Avberšek, 2006).
Nearly all clusters were associated with foreign net‐
works and clusters. As many as two‐thirds of partic‐
ipating companies emphasized that the benefits of
clustering would be visible in the long‐term and that
the level of confidence in clusters was increasing
(Avberšek, 2006). 
Slovene clusters provided incentive for con‐
necting clusters and technology networks for the
purposes of stimulating greater efficiency and to
more easily penetrate markets external to the initial
state. In October 2005, eleven clusters established
the Interest Group of Clusters and Technology Net‐
works at the Chamber of Commerce (IZ GTM). This
interest group was established with the aim of pro‐
moting mutual cooperation among clusters and net‐
works for the design and implementation of
development strategies. At the same time, IZ GTM
was to contribute to the international promotion of
development potential and strengthen the ability of
engaging in international development partner‐
ships. As a member of IZ GTM, the Slovenian Cham‐
ber of Commerce provides the basic infrastructure
for the continued operation of this group. In addi‐
tion, clusters and networks combine data and infor‐
mation on their operations and share activities and
Year Million SIT Number of Clusters
2001 150 3
2002 331 11
2003 650 17
2004 1,010 29
Source: Andrič, 2003
Table 2. Amount of Co‐financing and Number of
Projects in the years 2001 ‐ 2004
At the conclusion of 2003, State Secretary of
the ME, Mateja Dermastia, stated: “The Slovenian
model of cluster development is unique and inter‐
nationally recognized ‐ the accession has a leading
position in the EU. In particular, clusters were sup‐
ported by the state with co‐financing of viable proj‐
ects rather than with subsidies entirely, as is
generally in the majority practice in Europe. Sloven‐
ian clusters involving more than 350 companies and
institutions with 55,000 employees.” (Redakcija Fi‐
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
12
plans for the creation of a common information
base. Financing is provided to all members that are
a part of this association and in accordance with the
agreed program of work and the extent of planned
joint activities under the project principle.
3.2.3 Maturity Stage
By 2008 and with the support of the Chamber
of Commerce, the Slovenian government managed
to establish an operational group of clusters, with
no impact on the type of industry within which the
individual cluster was developed. Precisely at that
time, the European Union ascertained that clusters
could play a huge role in future economic growth,
given that key factors for competitiveness in the
long‐run were identified as: economic performance,
R&D and innovation (Bettendroffer, 2012). It has
been observed that regions with strong clusters re‐
covered much more rapidly from the recent eco‐
nomic crisis than have regions without clusters
(TechAmerica Foundation, 2010). One clear objec‐
tive of the Europe 2020 strategy is the move to‐
wards world‐class clusters (European Commission,
2008). The next step is to support cluster collabora‐
tion, which is essential to overcoming regional
boundaries and for moving towards world‐class
clusters via European inter‐clusters. 
As well as keeping records on the number of ex‐
isting clusters across the country, the Slovenian gov‐
ernment has also set up measures to gauge the
effects of their operation. In 2010, the Chamber of
Commerce and Industry of Slovenia published a
brochure with a list and descriptions of 11 Slovenian
innovative clusters and four technology networks
(Slovenian Chamber of Commerce, 2010). According
to these figures, 38% of the clusters are in operation
when compared to the quantitative peak that oc‐
curred in 2004.
The emergence and development of clusters in
Slovenia can be summed up in the following phases:
(1) triggering development of clusters by ME and
the Chamber of Commerce; (2) peak in the number
of clusters and inflated expectations; (3) search for
funding sources, external integration, positioning in
business premises; (4) existence of operational, fully
independent clusters that are embedded within the
wider business environment.
3.3 Technology Platforms
Following 2004, there began in Slovenia a
process of rapid deployment of Technology Plat‐
forms. Unlike clusters, technology networks are
used for the development of certain technologies
and the application of these technologies by various
industries, companies and products. 
Technology Platforms are mechanisms of devel‐
opment policy. Their purpose is to enable the con‐
frontation of challenges inherent to individual fields
and to determine strategic advantages and opportu‐
nities for technologically advanced areas. In the area
of R&D, they promote targeted investments and a
more effective approach to innovation. They also
promote the coordinated action of European and na‐
tional research programs. Technology Platforms sup‐
port the continuous development of appropriate
skills in relation to a particular field of technology
and support the use of new technologies. Crucial to
the functioning of Technology Platforms is that com‐
panies take over a leading role in shaping the func‐
tioning of each Technology Platform. Technology
Platforms have an open structure. To be effective,
they must necessarily include numerous key stake‐
holders, from companies to institutes, universities
and public institutions (Štumberger, 2007).
The following chapter describes the develop‐
ment of Technology Platforms in Slovenia in greater
detail.
3.3.1 Initializing the Development of Technology
Platform 
In preparation for the 7th Framework Program
in 2004, the European Commission began to actively
promote the creation of European Technology Plat‐
forms designed to integrate all key players in a par‐
ticular technological field and to provide
suggestions for improved research policy and more
effective implementation of transnational research
projects. One purpose of the national Technology
Platforms has been to facilitate improved coopera‐
tion within the European research area.
The Republic of Slovenia’s Ministry of Higher
Education, Science and Technology (MHEST) sup‐
ported the European Commission's plans and
sought to ensure the participation of a greater num‐
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 13
ber of Slovenian researchers within European Tech‐
nology Platforms. In 2005, it therefore carried out a
call for the support and creation of national Tech‐
nology Platforms. These groups have had to be cre‐
ated in related areas to those already existing in
Europe and have had to connect themselves with
cognate European Technology Platforms.
In 2005, 12 selected Technology Platforms de‐
signed their websites, organized a national work‐
shop and began preparing a strategic development
plan (Table 3).
In 2005, the development of national Technol‐
ogy Platforms in Slovenia was also encouraged by the
Slovenian Chamber of Commerce and MHEST with a
strategic business conference on Technology Plat‐
forms that represented the first in a series of planned
milestones for the implementation of the project on
Technology Platform Strategies Development.
In 2006, the Directorate for Technology of
MHEST continued with the tender it had initiated in
2005. With this tender, MHEST pursued the creation
of new national platforms in areas where just a few
European initiatives were already in existence. All of
the former initiatives were further subsidized to con‐
nect with European platforms and to develop even
greater and more precise strategic research plans for
the future (7th Framework Programme EU, 2006).
3.3.2 A Period of Co‐financing and Growth
In 2005, the adopted National Research and
Development Programme (NRDP) for the period
2006‐2010 highlighted the identification of techno‐
logical development priorities in which Slovenia had
the greatest potential knowledge (as well as in the
general economy) as central tasks in the field of sci‐
ence and technology policies. Following adoption of
the NRDP, this programme actually represented the
first systematic and methodical approach to antici‐
pating technological innovations and determining
priority technology areas in Slovenia. The govern‐
Technology Platform Institution Web Page
Slovenian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technology Platform
TECES, Technological Centre for Electrical
Machines www.sihfc.si
Slovenian Textile Technology Platform IRSPIN www.irspin.si
Technology Platform Tool‐making and
Mechatronics, T‐PLATAMM
TECOS, Slovenian Tool and Die
Development Centre www.manufuture.si
Slovenian Construction Technology
Platform
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil
and Geodetic Engineering www.sgtp.si
Photovoltaic Technology Platform Energy Restructuring Agency www.pv‐platforma.si
Advanced Materials Technology Platform
‐ NaMat ISOKON d.o.o. www.namat.si
Slovenian Wood Technology Platform Technological Institute of Wood Scienceand Technology Ljubljana www.sltp.si
Technology Platform for Water Jožef Stefan Institute www.tpvode.si
TN Information and Communication
Technology
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering www.ict‐slovenia.net
Slovenian Technology Platform for Road
and Vehicle Traffic Institute of Construction Slovenia www.ertrac.si
TN Process Control Technology INEA
Embedded Systems ARTEMIS Iskra Systems www.tp‐artemis.uni‐mb.si
Table 3. Nationally Supported Technology Platforms in 2005
Source: 7th Framework Programme EU, 2006
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
14
ment of the RS used the policies of existing national
Technology Platforms and studies of technological
foresight as the basis for a wider debate on devel‐
opment priorities in Slovenia within the framework
of the Competitiveness Council at the Government
of the RS Office for Development in 2008.
At the end of 2009, the market economy con‐
firmed the growing importance of investing in Re‐
search and Development (R&D), which was in turn
also reflected by the continuous increase of private‐
sector expenditure on R&D. Strategic research plans
were established for 22 platforms while an analysis
of priority technology areas with major impact on
the competitiveness of the economy was also made
on this basis. 31 developmental issues were there‐
after grouped into 14 key areas.
3.3.3 Maturity Stage
Although there has been no significant co‐fi‐
nancing of operations since 2006, Technology Plat‐
forms have not disintegrated ‐ largely as a result of
members’ interests. National Technology platforms
have successfully competed for national and Euro‐
pean tenders and have represented the central
component of the consortium for the development
of Centres of Excellence. In 2009, Technology Plat‐
forms included 711 companies, 100 R&D organisa‐
tions and 82 universities. This refers to development
platforms with interests in topical issues that hold‐
ers of knowledge from R&D institutions and the
economy actually face. These are in turn able to
argue for defining development policy priorities and
measures that are necessary for effective Technol‐
ogy Platform implementation. 
At the 5th Conference on Technology Platforms
in 2009 it was concluded that, due to the small num‐
ber of Slovenian researchers and developers in the
economy, a concentration of researchers in a small
number of integrated (inter‐disciplinary) develop‐
ment projects was needed to achieve technological
breakthroughs. The Conference stressed the need
for clearly defined and topical (actual) priority areas
(GZS, 2009).
In the summer of 2010, there followed a
TRINET conference of three technology platforms,
from the construction, wood and polymer sectors.
Participants realized that tasks from prepared
strategic development documents had been real‐
ized too slowly. On the entrepreneurial side, activi‐
ties and investment were too rare and too small due
to the economic crisis that had spread across all
three sectors, and particularly the construction sec‐
tor. Other elements found to be missing were
human resources and innovation competencies.
Even in the event that these resources and compe‐
tencies were located within a commercial sector,
there was found to be a lack of opportunity to ab‐
sorb public resources. A major obstacle lies in the
fact that instruments change each year, thereby pre‐
venting development planning that is of a longer du‐
ration. In terms of lack of economic absorption
capacity, this harnesses the research sector to gain
new knowledge and increase involvement in re‐
search projects. In this way, the research sector di‐
verges from the needs of the economy. Technology
Platforms greatly assist with integration into EU Re‐
search and Development (GZS, 2010).
Probably due to the economic crisis and the
prevalence of poor conditions in certain industries,
several Slovene Technological Platforms have greatly
reduced the number of activities of their local mem‐
bers. One such example is the Slovene Textile Tech‐
nology Platform, where activities are largely limited
to training, workshops and knowledge transfer.
Membership in Technology Platforms can be re‐
duced at the expense of multiple company closures.
However, this does not preclude that certain com‐
panies would not participate in the area of knowl‐
edge transfer and innovation, as they have an open
path to European Technology Platforms that provide
greater opportunities ‐ easier participation in ten‐
ders and better access to projects. 
Companies and researchers also seek out new
opportunities in Competence Centres and Centres
of Excellence that have also recently been sup‐
ported by the Government of RS.
3.4 Competence Centres and Centres
of Excellence
In accordance with the Rules on record keeping
about innovative environment (2008) Centres of Ex‐
cellence are classified as other key entities of inno‐
vative supportive environments within Slovenia. 
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 15
A Centre of Excellence comprises a high quality
multi‐disciplinary team of researchers from acade‐
mia and industry that together provide a critical
mass of knowledge and a suitable research infra‐
structure for allowing Centres of Excellence to break
through into the world's top sciences and/or be‐
come included in an international network of excel‐
lence (Glas, 2007). These centres cover narrower,
more specialized areas that are capable of market
penetration on the European and global scale and
that alongside the breakthrough of Slovenian com‐
panies, can ensure a leading position for Slovenia
within the world’s technological development
niches.
The Instrument of the Competence Centre is a
complementary instrument to Centres of Excellence.
Together, these form a complete whole in the field
of national Research and Development activities.
3.4.1 Initializing the Development of Competence
Centres and Centres of Excellence 
MHEST has designated Centres of Excellence as
a first priority task within the Unified Programming
Document 2004‐2006 and their Operational Pro‐
grammes for the period 2007‐2013. In the MHEST
tender for the development of Centres of Excellence
in the 2009‐2013 period, 8 Centres of Excellence
were selected in Slovenia. These are: the Centre of
Excellence in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology; the
Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumenta‐
tion and Process Control; the Centre of Excellence
for Integrated Approaches in Chemistry and Biology
of Proteins; the Centre of Excellence for Low Carbon
Technologies; the Centre of Excellence Advance Ma‐
terials for the Future; the Centre of Excellence for
Polymer Materials and Technologies; the Slovenian
Centre of Excellence for Space Sciences and Tech‐
nologies; the Centre of Excellence for Research in
Biotechnology, Pharmacy and Physics of Materials. 
National Structural Funds were intended to as‐
sist Centres of Excellence on their way to becoming
leaders among their fields in the long‐term. Struc‐
tural Funds supported applied research of a company
through direct co‐financing, thus demonstrating gov‐
ernment level interest in developing research
achievements in the most innovative products and
services for successful marketing on the European
and global levels. With the financial assistance of
these funds, Centres of Excellence were able to pur‐
chase some of the most advanced research equip‐
ment available to their respective fields. 
In connection with the tender for the develop‐
ment of Centres of Excellence in the 2009‐2013 pe‐
riod, 7 Competence Centres were also selected.
These were: the Competence Centre for Advanced
Control Technologies; the Competence Centre for
Advanced Systems of Efficient Use of Electricity; the
Competence Centre for Biomedical Engineering; the
Competence Centre for Sustainable and Innovative
Construction; the Competence Centre for Biotech‐
nology Development and Innovation; the Compe‐
tence Centre for Services Supported by Cloud
Computing and the Competence Centre Open Com‐
munication Platform for Service Integration.
3.4.2 A Period of Co‐financing and Growth
In 2008, Mešl and Bučar (2008) conducted a
mid‐term evaluation of the results of 10 Centres of
Excellence that was consistent with physical targets
that had initially been set as well as with the meas‐
ure itself in the Unified Programming Document.
Furthermore, they evaluated the results of Centres
of Excellence and presented programs for the next
programming period from the perspective of inte‐
grating economic partners and on the basis of the
economic relevance of research programs. They also
provided recommendations for the further imple‐
mentation of the measure in the context of the Op‐
erational Programme for the period 2007‐2013.
Mešl and Bučar (2008) concluded that Centres
of Excellence are one of the few instruments to pro‐
mote an inter‐ (trans‐) disciplinary approach to re‐
search and are therefore better suited to the needs
of the economy, where issues are typically not en‐
closed within separate disciplines. Centres of Excel‐
lence are instruments that in some way determine
priorities and place urgent and major focus on joint
R&D ventures in priority technology areas that are
of key importance for economic competitiveness. In
Slovenia, Centres of Excellence also reflect upon
economic fields that have the potential knowledge
to achieve a breakthrough in the international envi‐
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
16
ronment. Irrespective of the significant differences
among them, these Centres involve a number of
partners from both the academic and business en‐
vironments and therefore contribute to the elimi‐
nation of one of the most important deficiencies in
the area of Research and Development in Slovenia
‐ the lack of an effective and integrated flow of
knowledge and application of this knowledge to
products and services.
A common finding of the study was that the in‐
struments for the implementation of set measures
do not fully conform to pursued objectives and to
concepts that are defined by Centres of Excellence. 
Mešl and Bučar (2008) particularly exposed
that Centres of Excellence are expected to con‐
tribute to integration in order to achieve a critical
mass of knowledge within a particular field, thus en‐
abling inclusion into relevant international net‐
works. The criterion of the call for Centres of
Excellence was that participant groupings must in‐
clude at least three partners. This was reflected in a
very unequal structure of partners, where one indi‐
vidual area (such as new materials) was supported
by several centres ‐ some of which had only a few
partners that were also very sector limited and thus
did not follow the rationale of building inter‐disci‐
plinary teams.
Mešl and Bučar (2008) also observed that Cen‐
tres of Excellence have primarily been set‐up as in‐
struments for the promotion of strategic
cooperation between and among different partners
from academia and industry, for the purpose of en‐
couraging joint planning and directing investments
into a development of knowledge with regard to
long‐term development trends. Promotion instru‐
ments have thus far been limited solely to the pur‐
chase of common equipment and carried out on the
basis of joint R&D projects. They have not, however,
established cooperation, joint planning and devel‐
opment of environmental systems for long‐term co‐
operation and exploitation. 
The study (Mešl & Bučar, 2008) reported that
Centres of Excellence are expected to significantly
contribute to the flow of knowledge, the identifica‐
tion and pooling of partner competences in the
fields of science and development and commercial‐
ization of new knowledge. Support instruments ig‐
nore this and unequally treat partners in such a way
that enables co‐financing predominantly to those
involved in the public research sphere. They also do
not provide support throughout the process of de‐
velopment and application of knowledge.
Mešl and Bučar (2008) further noted that there
is no common strategy at the state level in terms of
establishing more defined goals and policies. Upon
achieving this ambitious goal, Slovenia could not
only act as a source of finance and controller of
spending, but should also become a partner in guid‐
ing the development of Centres of Excellence. This
would further assist the Republic of Slovenia to be
well‐positioned within the entire international inno‐
vation system. 
3.4.3 Maturity Stage
As reported by the Institute for Entrepreneur‐
ship Research (IER, 2011:8‐9), Centres of Excellence
had by 2011 successfully upgraded from previous
collaboration between companies and knowledge
institutions and established new partnerships (for
example in the fields of environmental technologies
and nanotechnology). In 2011, 50 companies par‐
ticipated as active partners, while a further 100
were involved in other forms of cooperation. At that
time, hundreds of researchers operated at Centres
of Excellence... They created a series of excellent sci‐
entific results, reinforced the international dimen‐
sion and contributed to the development of higher
education. They further contributed to the attain‐
ment of more than 200 patents and innovations, de‐
veloped new technologies, products and services
and provided new jobs. 
Operations of instruments of Competence Cen‐
tres and Centres of Excellence that were financed
by the Slovene Ministry of Education, Science and
Sport (MESS) were completed by the end of 2013.
The work done by the Competence Centres and the
Centres of Excellence is currently being analysed to
create a starting base for their continuation. Dr.
Jernej Pikalo, Minister at MESS, provided an inter‐
view where he assured that the instruments would
continue, but only with respect to those Compe‐
tence Centres and Centres of Excellence that man‐
aged to establish a high degree of cooperation with
industry ‐ which was also identified as the main rea‐
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 17
son for their establishment (“Smart Specialization”
[Technological Network ICT], 2013). Re‐tendering
for Competence Centres and Centres of Excellence
is to follow in up‐coming years.
Currently, work that is being carried out as well
as the corresponding effects of these activities are
being analysed.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Due to increased globalization and intensified
competition, companies and other organisations
must be capable of meeting requirements man‐
dated by the changing socio‐economic environ‐
ment. This is not only a question of cost and time,
but also a question of being capable of meeting the
diverse requirements of clients in different global
markets. The need for quick reaction in a rapidly
changing economic environment has stimulated the
development of a series of new organisational con‐
cepts, which include the following components: dy‐
namics and openness. While companies perceive
the need to develop new products and penetrate
new markets, they are less aware of the benefits to
be gained from participating in joint activities within
their own sector and among interdisciplinary sec‐
tors. Elements of the institutional environment can
bridge this gap by initiating activities and processes
that enable faster developmental shift in a strategic
direction. Clusters, technology platforms, compe‐
tence centres and centres of excellence are
emerged forms of contemporary networking among
companies and other organisations prevalent in
Slovenia. 
This paper confirms the proposed hypothesis.
The institutional environment of Slovenia initiated
start‐up processes that led to the establishment of
contemporary network organisations, namely
Slovenian state institutions encouraged network
connections between companies and other organi‐
sations through stimulating policies and the provi‐
sion of financial initiatives. 
There is no doubt that so‐called ˝organisational
networking˝ represented one of the best known or‐
ganisational concepts as early as the end of the
1990’s. We can maintain that the diffusion and sig‐
nificance of networked organisation forms will con‐
tinue to increase in future. In Slovenia there are
prevalent examples of initiated contemporary net‐
work organisations that are currently at a mature
stage and which have successfully established them‐
selves within EU structures. While inter‐organisa‐
tional linking will likely have a different form and
extensiveness from what it does today, it is likely to
take position at in the forefront. 
Living Labs represent the next step to the con‐
temporary promotion of economic development.
The Living Lab System enables real and user‐ori‐
ented research and innovation as a normative tech‐
nique to co‐design new products, services and social
infrastructure. Living Labs offer services that allow
users to actively participate in research and innova‐
tion. This network environment connects re‐
searchers, developers and users that work together
to achieve a common goal in the shortest possible
timeframe. As such, Living Labs require the contin‐
uation and further development of current research
for a comprehensive impression of the functioning
and effect of network organisations in Slovenia.
EXTENDED SUMMARY / IZVLEČEK
Sodobne organizacije se soočajo z velikimi izzivi. Glavni izziv jim predstavlja potreba po
nenehnem prilagajanju spreminjajočim se razmeram v okolju. Da bi se lažje in hitreje prilagodile za‐
htevam sodobnih okolij, se povezujejo v mreže. Mrežna organizacija posledično hitro postaja
priljubljena oblika sodobne organizacije. Na podlagi analize članov na področju mrežnih organizacij
prispevek predstavlja dimenzije in opredelitve mrežnih organizacij. Predstavljena so teoretična
izhodišča razlage mrežnih organizacij in njihove različne pojavne oblike. Poudarek je na empiričnem
delu prispevka, v katerem je predstavljena analiza oblik mrežnih organizacij, ki so prisotne v Sloveniji,
z vidika njihove oblike, razvoja in ocenjenega dejanskega razvojnega stanja. V Slovenskem okolju smo
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
18
REFERENCES
7th Framework Programme (2006). http://www.rtd.si/
slo/7op/obvestila/06/tehn‐platforme‐260106.asp
(accessed April 17, 2014).
Alstyne, M. V. (1997). The state of network organization:
A survey in three frameworks. Journal of Organiza‐
tional Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7, 83–
151.
Andrič, V. (2003). Analysis of Ministry of Economy’s ten‐
ders on areas for the development of entrepreneur‐
ship and competitiveness. Ljubljana: Ministry of
Economic Development and Technology. 
Avberšek, A. (2006). Clustering and networking strengthen
our members. Voice of the economies, April 2006.
Berghoff, H., & Sydow, J. (2007). Unterhnehmerische Net‐
zwerke ‐ Theoretische Konzepte und historische Er‐
fahrungen. In H. Berghoff, & J. Sydow (Eds.),
Unternehmerische Netzwerke. Stuttgart: W. Kohl ‐
hammer.
Bettendroffer, C. (2012). Competitiveness in the European
Union: Is cluster cooperation the right way towards the
future? Final Management Project. London: MIB 7.
Bleicher, K. (2011). Das Konzept Integriertes Manage‐
ment. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Bohinc, R., & Ivanjko, Š. (1999). Director of the Company.
Ljubljana: GV Založba. 
Bullinger, H. J., Warnecke, H. J., & Westkamper, E. (2003).
Neue Organisationsformen im Unternehmen, Ein
Handbuch für das moderne Management, 2 Aufl.
Berlin: VDI‐Buch Springer.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica,
New Series, 4 (16), 386‐405.
Daft, R. L. (2000). Management. Fort Worth: Harcourt
College Publishers.
Daft, R. L. (2010). New Era of Management. Mason:
South‐Western Cengage Learnig.
Dermastia, M. (2002). Country Case Study on Local Clus‐
ters in Slovenia. Ljubljana: Ministry for Economy.
DiMaggio, P. J. (2001). The Twenty‐First Century Firm.
New York: Princeton.
Ebers, M. (1997). Explaining inter‐organizational network
formation. In M. Ebers (Ed.), The Formation of Inter‐
Organizational Networks. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
European Commission (2008). The concept of clusters
and cluster policies and their role for competitiveness
and innovation: main statistical results and lessons
learned. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities.
Everett, K. (2011). Designing the Network Organization.
New York: Business Expert Press.
Fleisch, E. (2001). Das Netzwerkunternehmen. Berlin:
Springer.
Gibbert, M., & Durand, T. (2007). Strategic Networks. Ox‐
ford: Blackwell.
Glas, M. (2007). Handbook on entities of an innovative
environment and business environment. Centre for
Enterprise Development. 
Gomez, P. (1992). Neue Trends in der Konzern Organiza‐
tion. Zeitschrift fur Organization, 61 (3), 166–172.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic Net‐
works. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203‐215.
GZS (2009). 5th Conference of Technology Platforms ‐
Press Release. http://www.gzs.si/ slo/47453 (acces ‐
sed April 17, 2014).
GZS (2010). TRINET Conference of the three technology
platforms: construction, wood and polymer technol‐
ogy, July 6, 2010. https://www.gzs.si/slo/panoge/
zasledili grozde, tehnološke platforme, kompetenčne centre in centre odličnosti. Vse naštete pojavne
oblike smo spremljali skozi tri faze njihovih življenjskih ciklov, in sicer fazo iniciacije ter zgodnjega
razvoja, fazo rasti in fazo zrelosti. Ob tem smo spremljali spreminjanje njihovega števila, ki se je
pričakovano zmanjševalo od  faze iniciacije ter zgodnjega razvoja do faze zrelosti. Opazili smo, da so
imeli večji potencial za obstoj tisti opazovani primeri mrežnih organizacij, ki so se uspeli nadalje in‐
tegrirati v njim sorodne strukture Evropske unije.
Na osnovi analize dokumentacijskega materiala sklepamo, da je institucionalno okolje sprožilo
in usmerilo procese ustvarjanja sodobnih oblik mrežnih organizacij v Sloveniji. Žal pa se zaradi po‐
manjkanja strategije razvoja dejavnosti na področju Slovenije niso uspele po prenehanju subven‐
cioniranja ohraniti nekatere pomembne vzpodbujene tvorbe. Takšen je primer Slovenskega
transportno logističnega grozda. Prispevek vzpodbuja k razmisleku po potrebi vgraditve mehanizma
za kontinuirano preverjanje potrebe po vključevanju institucionalnega okolja v proženje in usmerjanje
procesov ustvarjanja sodobnih organizacijskih oblik v okolju, ki ga zastopa.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014 19
zbornica_gradbenistva _in _industrije_gradbenega_
materiala/50429 (accessed April 17, 2014).
Hatch, M. J. (2013). Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
IER (2011). What and who is Slovenian supportive envi‐
ronment and how it can help you in the realization of
your innovative product or service. http://www.Inno‐
vation 2020.eu/Dokumenti/Koristninasveti/Kaj%20in
%20kdo%20je%20slovensko%20podporno%20okolje
_final.pdf (accessed May 03, 2014).
Jaklič, M., Svetina, C., & Zagoršek, H. (2004). Final Report:
Evaluation of measures to encourage the develop‐
ment of clusters in Slovenia in the period 2001 – 2003.
http://www.mgrt.gov.si/fileadmin/mgrt.gov.si/
pageuploads/razpisi/analize_razpisov/evalvacija_ukre
pov_spodbujanja_grozdenja_261104.pdf (accessed
April 17, 2014).
Jarillo, J. C. (1988). On Strategic Networks. Strategic Man‐
agement Journal, 9, 31–41.
Jones, G. R., & Bouncken, R.B. (2008). Organization.
München: Pearson Studium.
Josserand, E. (2004). The Network Organization. London:
Elgar.
Kelly, K. (1998). New Rules for the New Economy. New
York: Viking Penguin. 
Kieser, A., & Walgenbach, P. (2010). Organization.
Stuttgart: Schäffer‐Poeschel Verlag.
Kovač, J. (2011). Teorija mrež (Network Theory). In R. Roz‐
man, M. Mihelčič, & J. Kovač (Eds.), Sodobne teorije
organizacije (Modern Theories of Organization). Uni‐
versity of Ljubljana: Faculty of Economics. 
Malone, W. T. (2004). The Future of Work. Boston: Har‐
vard Business School Press.
Mešl, M., & Bučar, M. (2008). Evaluation of the economic
relevance of the results of programs on Centers of Ex‐
cellence. Ljubljana: Concept, Institute for Innovation
and integration.
Mihelčič, M. (2011). Institucionalna teorija (Institutional
theorie). In R. Rozman, M. Mihelčič, & J. Kovač (Eds.),
Sodobne teorije organizacije (Modern Theories of Or‐
ganization). University of Ljubljana: Faculty of Eco‐
nomics. 
Milberg, J., & Schuh, G. (2002). Erfolg in Netzwerk. Berlin:
Springer. 
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of Failure in Net‐
work Organizations. California Management Review,
34 (4), 53–72.
Moliterno, T. P., & Mahoney, D. M. (2011). Network The‐
ory of Organizations: A Multilevel Approach. Journal
of Management, 37, 443‐467.
Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Networks and organi‐
zations: Structure, form, and action. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Organization of the Future – Designed to Win (2011).
http://www.oevo.at/pdf/BCG_Designed_to_Win_Dez
_2011.pdf (accessed May 03, 2014)
Picot, A., Dietl, H., & Franck, E. (1999). Organization.
Stuttgart: Schaffer‐Poeschl.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Na‐
tions. New York: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The Future of
Competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Redakcija Financ (2003). Slovenian Clusters met in Ve‐
lenje. http://www.finance.si/61263/V‐Velenju‐so‐se‐
sre%C4%8Dali‐slovenski‐grozdi (accessed April 17,
2014).
Rohde, M., Rittenbuch, M., & Wulf, V. (2001). Auf dem
Weg zur virtuellen Organization. Hiedelberg: Physica‐
Verlag.
Rozman, R., & Kovač, J. (2012). Management. Ljubljana:
GV Založba.
Rules on record keeping about innovative environment.
Official Gazette of RS, no. 25/2008.
Schermerhorn, J. R. Jr. (2010). Introduction to manage‐
ment. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Slovenian Chamber of Commerce (2010). Introduction to
Inovative Groups of Slovenia Innovative Clusters and
Technology networks. Ljubljana: GZS.
Smart Specialization [Technological Network ICT] (2013).
http://www.ict‐slovenia.net/medijsko‐sredie/89‐
pametna‐specializacija‐in‐izzivi‐slovenije‐2014‐2020
(accessed July 20, 2014).
Staehle, W. H. (1999). Management. München: Verlag
Vahlen.
Steinmann, H., & Schreyögg, G. (2005). Management.
Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Štumberger, B. (2007). Strategic Technology Platform as
a business challenge. Maribor: University of Maribor,
Faculty of Economics and Business. 
Sydow, J. (1992). Strategische Netzwerke. Evolution und
Organization, Neuebetriebswirtschaftliche Forschung.
Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Sydow, J., & Manning, S. (2006). Netzwerke beraten.
Wiesbaden: GablerVerlag.
TechAmerica Foundation (2010). Cybercities 2010: The
definitive analysis of the high technology industry in
the nation’s top 60 cities. http://www.techamerica
foundation.org/ cybercities (accessed July 20, 2012).
Untermehmen. Berlin: Springer‐Verlag.
Vahs, D. (2005). Organization. Stuttgart: Schaffer‐
Poeschel Verlag.
Williams, C. (2009). Principles of Management. Mason:
South‐Western Cengage Learning.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of
capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting.
New York: The Free Press.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, November 2014
Jure Kovač, Brigita Gajšek: Contemporary Network Organisations in Slovenia
20
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Economic Institutions: Sponta‐
neous and Intentional Governance. Journal of Law,
Economics and Organization, 34, 159–187.
Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and eco‐
nomic organization. Journal of Law and Economics
and Organization, 36, 453–486.
Winkler, I. (1998). Kultur, Führung und Vertrauen in Un‐
ternehmensnetzwerken, eine kritische bestandsauf‐
nahme der, vorhandenen Netzwerklitertaur.
Chemnitz: Fakultete für Wirtschaftswissenschaften.