Initially, the question to ask is: what, in fact, is meant by the terms "attractive network position" and "effective management of an network position" when discussing the functioning of business networks. Defining these expressions will allow us to gain a deeper understanding of the day-to-day management of these companies. Being in an “attractive network position” refers to the positive effect that an additional customer of a particular service has on the value of that good produced, for other people, within the network (Shapiro & Varian, 1999). “Effective management of a network position” refers to the need for managers to go beyond what the customer wants, in order to organize the management of the enterprise in complex network situations (Ritter, 1999). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There are numerous theories intended to capture the company's network management; such as: competence and networking capabilities (Ritter, 1999) which are used to support relationships with external partners. It could be argued that for a company to operate in an attractive location, managers must be strategic by analyzing the trade or environmental conditions in which they work. Next, they evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the group of actors they oppose. Taking this into consideration, they aim to carve a distinct tactical position where they can outperform their competitors by building a competitive advantage (Kim & Mauborgne, 2009). The basic sense here is that a company's strategic choices are constrained by the situation. Thus, according to this approach, the success of a firm depends on its behavior, which essentially depends on essential structural factors such as the number of suppliers and buyers and barriers to entry (Kim & Mauborgne, 2009). There are numerous concerns that companies face when attempting to achieve above-average revenue within corporate networks. First, as demonstrated earlier in this essay, if firms are not attractively positioned within the business network, others may appear more commercially attractive than them. In fact, Porter's 5 forces can be used to evaluate the attractiveness of different network positions. This framework was developed in 1979 by Michael E Porter of Harvard Business School as a simple theory to review the competitive vigor and position of a business organization (CGMA, 2013). The five forces are: supplier power; a measurement of how easy it is for suppliers to raise prices and buyer power; a measure of how unproblematic it is for buyers to decrease prices and competitive rivalry; which refers to the quantity of competitors in the market and includes the capabilities of these competitors and the threat of substitution; refers to the existence of similar products in the same market, where consumers are likely to purchase their product elsewhere, especially if prices are too high and threaten new entries; which refers to cost-effective markets that attract innovative competitors (CGMA, 2013). For example, this can be applied to the Marks & Spencer case study. In 2012, Next, which is considered by many to be M&S's younger sister, overtook M&S in terms of stock market value and net worth (Neate, 2014). In 2013 and 2014, M&S encountered many problems, including the biggest one being competition with Next, because they both target more or less the same market of young and middle-aged women (Neate, 2014). Unlike Next, M&S was perceived as old-fashioned andinsensitive to modern purchasing habits, therefore, probably, with little attention to its target customers (Neate, 2014). Subsequently, this case study partially supports Porter's Five Forces analysis because evidently M&S have suffered the consequences of the "threat of substitution" where Next, their strongest competitor, contributes to hindering their sales. Consequently, these “five forces” can be used in practice to consider changing industry characteristics and strategic market analysts are said to often apply Porter's five forces to understand whether innovative products or services are profitable (CGMA, 2013) . . A common perception is that a company's positioning within the corporate network depends entirely on its capabilities. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the firm's capabilities before evaluating network positions, using Porter's Five Forces framework. For example, the Pearson case study supports this because in 2013 Pearson implemented a strategic change by focusing on purely digital learning at the expense of all other types of learning (Harrison, 2013). The company aimed to spend over £150 million to restructure this education provider (Harrison, 2013). As a result, Pearson decided to completely reposition itself online because, as a company, they thought the economic value of education and skills would increase. would continue to increase, so that they would be able to build a stronger, more profitable, and faster growing company (Harrison, 2013). Therefore, this case study demonstrates that some companies are able to reposition themselves within the network to increase their attractiveness towards their customers. Subsequently, it is said that when companies reposition themselves within the network, they must maintain this particular position so that they can advance their exact propositions and make the most of its share of excess value (Neilson, Martin & Powers), therefore supporting the statement which recognizes that companies must be in an attractive network position to be sustainably profitable. It could be argued that to advance and examine a company's approach and strategy, one should use the skeletal model of strategic position analysis and action evaluation; also known as: SPACE, which is a methodical evaluation of four main issues that maintain the balance of external and internal factors that should verify the general premise of the approach (Simister, 2011). The four main issues referenced in the model are: industry attractiveness, environmental stability (external), competitive advantage and financial strength (internal). So, probably by mixing the ratings on each element on a SPACE matrix diagram, the skeletal model channels the calculated agenda. The reason is that financial strength is desirable to counteract environmental instability. The more challenging and complicated the upcoming environment, the more imperative it is to have solid finances. Thus, industry attractiveness and competitive advantage are seen as potentially substitute bases for higher profits and if both favor the company, the results should be exceptional but if both are unfavorable, then the company poses potential problems (Simister, 2011 ). for many businesses it is that their success is determined by the amount of money earned within their network; that is, be sustainably profitable. Therefore, after companies have behaved in a certain way to acquire an attractive position in the network, their main focus tends to be on where the money is located within the network.network and how they can get their hands on it. This links to the fact that powerful relationships are interconnected with effective management of a network position because power and control over relationships, within businesses, command the value stream. This can lead to a postcontractual power shift, which focuses on the responsibility of institutions, such as businesses, to influence financially sustainable behavior (Hamilton, 1919). This statement can be supported by the fact that buyer-supplier relationships are represented using four different power structures: buyer dominance, buyer-supplier independence, buyer-supplier interdependence, and supplier dominance (Campbell & Cunningham, 1983) and ( Cox, Sanderson & Watson, 2000). I will use the case study of “Hewlett-Packard Telecommunications Test Equipment Division” to support this initiative. To give a general idea of ​​the case, the test equipment division has subcontracted a considerable part of its manufacturing procedures to its supply foundation in order to reduce time to market. This shows that, as a company, they strongly support value for money. Beyond that, we can recognize what type of relationship characterizes this case study by evaluating the different ways buyers and suppliers interact. For example, HP Telecoms developed a guiding principle whereby suppliers manufactured according to HP designs, thus avoiding the possibility of lock-in, which can shift the balance of power. Furthermore, we are told that HP Telecoms gets quality inputs from its manufacturing subcontractors, which shows that as a company they control dominance and that they get their cut for surface value. Consequently, from all this information we can conclude that their relationship can be labeled as “buyer-dominated”, when using power structures to measure these existing relationships. Now that this has been clarified, it can be argued that successful profitability is caused by 3 major components: strategic positioning, market and sourcing and the two factors that link them all together are: power and control. For example, if we revisit the case study of Marks and Spencer, they did not achieve good profitability because their market and procurement were not well managed, and the same can also be said about their strategy, because they evidently targeted wrong types of customers, which illustrates their lack of clarity and probably their failure, as a company. Explaining how successful profitability can be achieved may be perceived as relatively simple; however, it is very difficult to achieve because there is a wide range of constraints for businesses in the real world. These constraints include: the presence of competitors, economic constraints, such as the amount of earnings consumers typically have to spend, and technological constraints, which include how businesses function, which in turn is determined by the technologies available to them ( LLP, 2018) . Furthermore, there are additional factors in which businesses, nowadays, are constrained, including, by social constraints (LLP, 2018). Recently, for example, customers have been choosing healthier foods over those that are heavily saturated with fat and contain high levels of processed elements, so businesses must respond to changes in their environment, in order to alter these changes (LLP, 2018 ) In theory, making these changes, as a company, should be reasonably unproblematic because you are simply responding to changes in public opinion, however, in practice, this is not the case because companies need to constantly be.