Search results

Coopetition (simultaneous cooperation and competition of actors) is still a relatively new concept in business, management, and tourism. However, several coopetition studies have focused on tourism and tourism destinations. Also, compilation literature reviews of tourism and tourism destinations have been published (Rusko, 2018). This chapter focuses on underlying coopetition networks of tourism and specifically of tourism destinations. Because of the typical features of tourism destinations, multifaceted connections in competition and cooperation – and coopetition – are present in everyday business and activities among actors of the destination. These coopetitive relationships cover several levels, they are present in micro, meso, macro, and meta level interplay of tourism destination. Furthermore, the analysis shows that several studies about coopetitive networks in tourism destinations do not use terms “macro” or “meta” though these seem to be the main levels of the studies. This only reveals the fertile dimensions of coopetitive networks in tourism. These various relationships form coopetitive networks that represent several dimensions and levels of actors, competition, cooperation, and coopetition. This chapter introduces these multifaceted perspectives of coopetition networks, which have been described in the contemporary literature about tourism and tourism destination.

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.

The chapter reflects on the coopetition concept and its role in combining cooperation and competition with a paradoxical situation between them. Likewise, it illustrates how coopetition gains a mutual advantage for the collaborative relationship of value creation, new product development (NPD), knowledge acquisition, and organizational performance in inter-organizations. However, it is necessary to build a friendly approach and proper management to ensure effective coopetition. The rationale, though, is the following: coopetition defines innovation performance; coopetition represents knowledge recombination in both inter-organizational and intra-organizational conditions; the coopetition outcomes state knowledge creation and firm’s innovation that lead to new ideas and new variations improving organizational relationships. At the same time, it is highlighted how the customer relationships are aligned in the enterprises and how knowledge transfer in different alliances influence dynamic and complex character exploring tacit and explicit knowledge. As far as knowledge is concerned in an organization, it illustrates the contribution of two essential elements in coopetition value creation, i.e., knowledge management and intellectual capital. By critically evaluating the following, we encourage coopetition and innovation to recognize knowledge and increase the performance of inter-organizational units. Moreover, the primary way for knowledge assessment in organizations is by collaboration with the competitors. Concluding, our theoretical approach acknowledges that knowledge sharing enables more efficient innovation by linking R&D efforts.

This chapter focuses on the coopetition features of tourism and specifically of tourism destinations. Because of the typical features of tourism destinations, coopetition might be a particularly important theme in the literature on tourism. However, the number of tourism studies that have focused on, or at least mentioned, coopetition is surprisingly small. Regarding tourism destinations, co-location causes different forms of coopetition situations, which are not very common in geographically diffused industries. Furthermore, the basic idea of one joint tourism product, such as the experiences of a tourist in a tourism destination, forces the (competing) suppliers of services in the resort to cooperate. Co-location causes a situation in which the competing firms in the area have joint branding and marketing activities. Destination marketing organisations are an important form of coopetition activities in tourism. In addition to co-location, seasonality is one of the specific features of coopetition in tourism destinations. This study combines the outcomes of several publications and other empirical materials about coopetition in tourism.

In this chapter, we empirically investigate an important question of “how does knowledge sharing and knowledge leakage impact the alliance performance in dyadic coopetitive alliance settings that involve small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).” Taking the perspective of the focal SME to address this question, we posit that while knowledge sharing positively associates with alliance performance, inadvertent knowledge leakage is negatively related to performance. We further postulate that under the conditions of high knowledge leakage, the positive impacts of knowledge sharing on performance would be reduced. Our structural model results based on a survey of 186 SMEs in the high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries in Sweden show support for two of the hypothesized relationships. More specifically, the results show that knowledge sharing has a positive effect on alliance performance but knowledge leakage has an insignificant direct effect on performance. However, knowledge leakage plays a negative moderating role on the relationship between knowledge sharing and performance. We contribute by demonstrating the effects of knowledge sharing and leakage in under-researched but important dyadic one-to-one coopetitive alliances involving SMEs.

The chapter introduces digital food hubs as disruptive business models in the agri-food system shifting away from the unsustainable industrialized and conventional food sector and moving toward a re-localized food and farming pattern. They are new digital business models developed to support small and mid-size farms with a value focus, forming new ways to leverage the technology as a facilitator for coopetitive organizational forms. Indeed, they respond to a competitive strategy constituted by a “value strategy” oriented to the production and distribution of “shared value.” Second, they are based on an “organizational strategy” that shifts from individual competition to “coopetition” through the development of local “strategic networks” among small size producers. Central to the development of these business models is the digital disruption that has offered the space for the creation of unconventional exchange and transaction mechanisms distinguishing them from the already existing traditional ways of work. The agri-food markets exhibit structural holes that impede small farms from connecting with local consumers. This is due to a lack of material infrastructures and organizational forms on behalf of small farms that cannot reach the consumers, as well as the concentration of power in the hands of a restricted numbers of distributors, which causes the unequal redistribution of the economic value and impedes small farms accessing the food market. The advent of the digital technology is reshaping the market relationship by allowing out centralized intermediaries and creating new bridges between producers and consumers.

This chapter identifies the coopetitive aspects of international brand licensing through the relationship between Burberry Group Plc and Sanyo Shokai. The well-documented relationship between the two firms is used to contribute to coopetition literature and brand licensing literature within an international context. This chapter answers how and why this initially mostly coopetitive relationship succeeded and what led to its eventual denouement. Both partners initially prospered, Burberry had its name efficiently spread across Japan, and Sanyo borrowed from the reputation established by Burberry’s brand name. After some time, Sanyo created brand extensions for the Japanese market which were more affordable than Burberry’s products. They were a big success, further popularizing the Burberry brand across Japan and handsomely benefiting both firms. Burberry grew concerned about inconsistent brand image. The ubiquity of the extension was diluting the luxury parent brand. Burberry thus prematurely ended the licensing agreement with Sanyo. The findings of this study offer valuable insights to firms either intending to internationalize through licensing or intending to be a long-term licensee.

Worldwide academia is going through a major transformation because of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards movements that are linked to big societal challenges such as climate change, digitalization, growing inequality, migration, political instability, democracies under threat and combinations of these challenges. The transformations affect the human resource management (HRM) and talent management of universities. The main focus of this chapter is on collaborative innovation and the way universities participate in coalitions and strategic alliances on national and international levels. These platforms not only discuss the transformations and support the academic changes but also act as talent pools and talent exchange. This chapter provides an overview of the current state of affairs with respect to Open Science and Recognition and Rewards in academia. Next, a theoretical foundation is presented on the concepts of collaborative innovation, coopetition and HRM innovation in general. The leaders or leading organizations in the HRM innovation models often can’t make it happen on their own, in particular in highly institutionalized contexts such as academia. The legitimacy of transformations requires coalitions of the willing and therefore strategic alliances on different levels. The coalitions in academia can also contribute to academic talent management through sectoral transformations (see Recognition and Rewards) and through the way these coalitions operate.