Search results

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

This research paper clarifies that a coopetition-oriented mindset does drive coopetition-oriented behaviors. The results reveal that industry experience has a negative impact on the manifestation of coopetition-oriented behaviors, due a risk-related reticence in choosing suitable coopetition partners. Engaging in internationalization – for example, by partnering with a competitor to enter a foreign export market – with a coopetition-oriented mindset, has the positive effect of yielding further coopetition-oriented behaviors. Organizations involved in international business models are therefore more likely to partake in coopetition strategies.

The briefing saves busy executives, strategists and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the theoretical and methodological value of studying coopetition (the interplay between cooperation and competition) in a wine industry context.

Key publications surrounding wine industries across multiple countries were reviewed to understand how the wine industry is a highly appropriate empirical context to investigate coopetition.

The findings revealed that the wine industry is a highly suitable empirical context for researchers to explore coopetition. Specifically, being a highly cooperative and competitive market, the wine industry provides a unique outlook into how coopetition is managed.

This paper helps scholars to appreciate the theoretical and methodological benefits of using a wine industry context to evaluate coopetition. Hence, scholars should use the wine industry to obtain rich empirical data surrounding coopetition. The paper ends with a set of recommendations for future research.

Integrating the coopetition perspective with institutional theory, this study aims to determine how balanced patterns (BPs) and combinative patterns (CPs) of coopetition impact firms’ new product development (NPD) and how these effects are contingent on the various types of interactions between firms and the institutional environments in which they are embedded.

To test the hypotheses, 303 firms in China were surveyed. Based on the responses, the proposed model was estimated using structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression analysis.

The findings indicate that CP of coopetition enhances NPD but a BP of coopetition impedes NPD. Further, the results suggest that obtaining government support positively moderates the effect of the CP on NPD but negatively moderates the effect of the BP. Conversely, influencing government policy negatively moderates the effect of the CP but positively moderates that of the BP on NPD.

The findings indicate that different patterns of inter-firm coopetition may have different effects on NPD, thus, providing a holistic and dynamic understanding of the contingent value of coopetition for NPD. The findings also suggest that the complex effects of coopetition on NPD are influenced by institutional interactions, introducing further contingencies to the process of coopetition-based innovation.

This study provides guidelines for managers seeking to fully understand and capitalize on the dual nature of coopetition: they should be cautious about the different patterns of competition – cooperation interaction and manage their interactions with institutional environments to increase the benefits and avoid the potential damage that different types of coopetition may bring.

This study offers direct insights into the balanced nature of coopetition and opens up an avenue for further exploration of the specific effects of cooperation dominance and competition dominance on firm performance in the business-to-business context. Moreover, the proposed contingency model offers a potential interface between institutional and coopetition research on NPD in marketing and strategic fields.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship between coopetition and organisational innovation in EU countries. As coopetition is usually studied from an inter-company perspective, this work looks in detail at the “ad intra” dynamics of the coopeting companies to understand how they adjust their organisation or implement organisational innovation to successfully adopt this original approach.

Using data from the Eurostat (CIS2014), this research offers a quantitative study into coopeting companies, relating coopetition to organisational innovation. The analysis technique used in this study is logistic regression with maximum likelihood estimation, where the dependent variable is the location of the coopeting companies.

The findings highlight specific characteristics and differences according to whether a company coopetes domestically or in other more complex geographic environments. It also incorporates variables into the analysis, such as the use of price marketing, employee training and company size.

This study provides insights into the relationship between coopetition and organisational innovation, in a research field that usually focusses on inter-company analysis. Several little-studied factors are included in the analysis, such as the role of employee qualifications and differences in coopetition in different geographic areas. The authors observe that, in certain locations, coopetition could be related to a “market entry” effect.

Although coopetition has been studied for decades, most prior studies shed light on interfirm coopetition across firms instead of intrafirm coopetition across functional departments within a firm. To fill the research gaps, this study aims to investigate the differential effects of cross-functional coopetition on both product and service innovations and the moderating roles of environmental turbulence.

This study surveyed both senior and middle managers from 149 pharmaceutical firms in China.

This study discovers the opposite relationships of cross-functional coopetition on product and service innovations such that cross-functional coopetition enhances product innovation but hurts service innovation. Furthermore, market turbulence attenuates the positive effect on product innovation but strengthens the negative effect on service innovation. However, technological turbulence attenuates the negative impact of cross-functional coopetition on service innovation.

The effects of cross-functional coopetition have been ignored in the innovation literature. By identifying the double-edged sword of cross-functional coopetition, this study contributes to the literature by providing new insights into the differential effects of cross-functional coopetition on product and service innovations.

Small sports clubs are the life-blood of particular communities, even though many are under-resourced and have difficulties in operating under an individualistic business model. Although coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition) has been recognised as a positive driver of performance, the complexities of this association remain under-researched. Consequently, grounded in resource-based theory and the relational view, the purpose of this current study is to examine the moderating roles of inter-firm conflict and competitive intensity in the coopetition–sales performance relationship.

After undertaking 25 field interviews, survey data were collected from 151 non-mainstream sporting clubs in New Zealand. This setting was ideal, since it hosts high-degrees of cooperativeness and competitiveness. After assessing the statistical data for all major robustness checks (including common method variance and endogeneity bias), the hypothesised and control paths were tested through a hierarchical regression analysis.

Coopetition had a positive relationship with sales performance, but inter-firm conflict yielded a negative interaction effect. Surprisingly, this link was positively moderated by competitive intensity.

Under-resourced entrepreneurs (like those in many small sports clubs) should consider cooperating with their competitors, as these strategies can assist them to improve their sales performance. However, they should be careful when engaging in such activities due to the considerable risk that rival firms could behave opportunistically, which might harm their performance. That being said, owner-managers are advantaged if they operate in sectors where there are lots of competitors because there is increased scope to collaborate with “complementary” and trustworthy rivals that can help them to achieve mutually-beneficial outcomes. Indeed, sporting governing bodies (including those that operate on a non-profit basis) should encourage their members to engage in coopetition due to these positive financial consequences.

This investigation contributes to the extant literature by evaluating the competitive forces affecting the link between coopetition and sales performance. Specifically, new evidence emerges on the circumstances where coopetition is (and is not) a performance-enhancing entrepreneurial strategy. Further, this investigation provides unique insights regarding coopetition among non-mainstream sporting clubs, adding new knowledge to the sports entrepreneurship literature. Moreover, by infusing resource-based theory with the relational view, stronger arguments feature how owner-managers can navigate the paradoxical forces that drive coopetition activities. This study ends with several practitioner implications, alongside a series of limitations and avenues for future research.

Building on the resource- and knowledge-based views, this paper aims to explore how coopetition affects radical innovation and the roles of knowledge structure and external knowledge integration in the relationship between coopetition and radical innovation.

This study proposes a research model to examine the mediating role of external knowledge integration on the coopetition-radical innovation link, where the mediation is moderated by the firm’s knowledge structure (including component knowledge and architectural knowledge). The authors use regression and bootstrapping to test the proposed model with survey data from 241 Chinese technology firms.

This study finds that coopetition positively affects radical innovation and the effect is fully mediated by external knowledge integration. Additionally, component knowledge negatively moderates the coopetition-external knowledge integration link and architectural knowledge positively moderates this relationship. Further, the mediating effect of external knowledge integration is also moderated by component knowledge and architectural knowledge.

Firms should engage in coopetition to promote radical innovation. Further, it is necessary for firms to appropriately manage coopetition according to their internal knowledge structure.

This study explains why scholars have different ideas about the relationship between coopetition and radical innovation by exploring the mediating role of external knowledge integration and the moderating effect of knowledge structure. Firms possess increased possibilities for knowledge leakage and partner opportunism with high levels of component knowledge, which will reduce the positive effect coopetition on external knowledge integration; thus, they are less likely to realize radical innovation. Instead, firms possess increased opportunities for resource sharing with high levels of architectural knowledge, thus improving the positive effect coopetition on external knowledge integration and they are more likely to achieve radical innovation.

This chapter develops an on-going theory of coopetition management in knowledge-based industries. Coopetition is a strategy which combines simultaneously competitive and collaborative relationships. This combination permits companies to benefit from both the advantages of the competition and the advantage of collaboration. However, this strategy is also risky in case of unintended spillovers and technology plunders. Companies have to manage the coopetitive risk by implementing three principles of coopetition management: the separation principle, the integration principle, and the co-management principle.

In this paper we present a systemic approach to modeling coopetition between firms that provides a methodology for analyzing the strategic incentives for organizations to engage in coopetition relationships (the why) and the organization design required to address the complexities inherent in such multifaceted relationships (the how).

We pursue a model-based approach that incorporates important conceptualizations adapted from competence-based management (CBM) theory and value network approach. We illustrate the applicability of our approach by applying it to the case of coopetition between IBM and Apple in the development of PowerPC CPU.

We show how modeling can contribute to our understanding of the strategic incentives for the organizations to develop a coopetitive relationship (“the why” of coopetition) and the organization design required for accommodating and addressing the complexities and dynamics of such a multifaceted relationship (“the how” of coopetition).

First, our findings echo some of the perspectives developed in coopetition literature. Second, the study has utilized value network-level analysis in examining coopetition.

The modeling framework reported in this paper can help management practitioners in structuring choice situations involving coopetition, both in terms of the incentives to engage in a coopetitive setting and the design of a value network that can accommodate the complexities inherent in such multifaceted relations.

Earlier work has suggested that assumptions, values and beliefs about the importance of cooperating with competitors (a coopetition-oriented mindset) should manifest into behavioural forms of coopetition, such as resource and capability-sharing activities. Yet, limited research surrounds the complexities of this link. The purpose of this study is to unpack the relationship between a coopetition-oriented mindset and coopetition-oriented behaviours under the moderating roles of industry experience and degree of internationalization, guided by resource-based theory and the relational view.

The chosen empirical context was the Canadian wine industry because wine producers are often involved in coopetition strategies and have varying degrees of internationalisation. Preliminary interview data were collected from 18 managers to shape the operationalisations. Then survey data were collected from 195 Canadian wine producers. After checking the statistical data for all major assessments of reliability and validity (together with common method variance), the hypothesised and control paths were tested through hierarchical regression.

A coopetition-oriented mindset had a positive and significant association with coopetition-oriented behaviours. Surprisingly, this link was negatively moderated by industry experience. Additionally, degree of internationalisation yielded a positive moderation effect. These moderators highlight situations where a coopetition-oriented mindset is (and is not) likely to manifest into coopetition activities.

If firms aim to engage in behavioural forms of coopetition, they should manage assumptions, values and beliefs associated with the advantages of collaborating with their competitors. Industry experience can limit the extent to which business’ coopetition-oriented mindsets manifest into coopetition-oriented behaviours. This could be explained by decision makers possessing information that discourages them from working with certain (untrustworthy) rivals because of the potential harmful effects on their performance. Companies should use their industry experience to avoid working with rival entities that will create negative outcomes, such as tensions (e.g., conflict, power imbalances and opportunistic behaviours), lost intellectual property and diluted competitive advantages. Nonetheless, industry experience might signify that there are more risks than rewards linked with these business-to-business marketing strategies. Higher levels of internationalisation can help firms to recognise that coopetition-oriented behaviours may lead to performance-enhancing opportunities in their overseas markets.

This investigation contributes to the business-to-business marketing literature with new evidence on how organisations can foster a coopetition-oriented mindset to engage in coopetition strategies. The negative moderation effect from industry experience highlights that knowledge of competitors’ activities can limit the extent to which coopetition-oriented behaviours are implemented. Moreover, the positive interaction effect from degree of internationalisation extends the growing body of knowledge pertaining to coopetition in an international arena. Collectively, these results show that while a coopetition-oriented mindset is a critical driver of coopetition-oriented behaviours, there are certain contingencies that can strengthen or weaken this association. Finally, by integrating resource-based theory and the relational view, this paper could explore the different forms of coopetition, in terms of organisation-wide mindsets and firm-level behaviours. This paper concludes with some managerial recommendations, alongside a series of limitations and avenues for future research.