Search results

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.

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the intellectual structure of coopetition through utilizing a citation and co-citation analysis of scholarly articles focusing on coopetition.

The authors conducted bibliometric analyses of citation and co-citation analysis. The units of analysis were original research articles and research notes retrieved from journals indexed by well-known databases. Keywords used in the search were “co-opet, co-opet, coopetition, coopetition, simultaneous cooperation and competition, simultaneously cooperate and compete, coexistence of cooperation and competition, coexistence of cooperation and competition, cooperate and compete simultaneously, coopetitive relationships, coopetitive relationships, coopetitive networks, horizontal alliances, cooperate with competitors, cooperation with competitors, cooperative relationships with competitors, cooperative competition and competitive cooperation.” Regarding the time period for publication of the sample articles, the authors did not place any restrictions.

The research findings provide evidence that coopetition demonstrates multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary characteristics. Subfields of the coopetition field were identified based on the components of coopetition, which are relation, process and strategy. The component dealing with relationship management and innovation as strategy become prominent. Although coopetition literature has emerged as a relation view of strategy, it is still fragmented and diverse. Additionally, the robust subfields generated from the analysis were super-positioned with low degrees.

This is one of the few studies offering a critical review of coopetition research via quantitative research approach.

The reality of today’s business world is based both on cooperation and competition, or coopetition. There is, however, a lot of diversity within the field of coopetition research, and the research within this field is moreover only at an emerging stage. The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of coopetition by recognizing actor and operational levels of coopetition. The nature of the paper is conceptual. The findings of the paper show that most of the previous research about coopetition has been on an interfirm level – that is, related to cooperation between companies. Further, it is possible to argue that the studies have mostly focused on cooperation between competitors. In the majority of the existing studies, coopetition is treated as a strategy, and not as something natural. The theoretical contribution of this paper is that it gives scholars within the area of coopetition a broad theoretical background, which is useful for future research. From a managerial perspective, the findings demonstrate the multifaceted nature of coopetition.

This paper contributes to extant knowledge by highlighting the complementarity‐based nature of coopetition strategy and its impact on collective strategies for value generation among actors.

Data collection draws on three cases encompassing three empirical contexts. A theoretical lens that enables a focus on contemporary inter‐organisational markets as organised behaviour systems manifesting network structures is adopted. Business strategy is operationalised as an exchange strategy with an emphasis on the exchange effectiveness achieved when some value is produced in cooperation with significant others.

The results show that managerial leadership and development of trust are the key success factors. Furthermore, this hybrid level of inter‐organisational relationship encompassing both competition and cooperation – coopetition – fosters collective intelligence through information and knowledge sharing.

This paper concludes that, due to contemporary inter‐organisational exchange often being governed by the “visible hand” of the process of networking, today's environment is different from the environment firms used to encounter in the past. From a managerial perspective, the findings demonstrate the multifaceted nature of coopetition. Additional work on the impact of the concept of coopetition strategy on business practice is needed to add to this valuable endeavour.

The existing studies are primarily concerned with arm's‐length exchange (competition), a dynamic situation in which several actors are vying for scarce resources and/or producing and marketing similar products or services. Comparatively little research has focused on inter‐organisational dynamics, which entails both cooperation and competition. This paper demonstrates that participating in inter‐firm networks has become increasingly popular to enhance corporate entrepreneurship.

This study aims to examine the critical role of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream), market structure (concentrated/competitive) and innovation (low vs high degree of innovation) that can affect the way consumers perceive the resulting price (un)fairness of new offerings.

Three between-subjects experiments involving different participant populations and product categories were conducted to test the research hypotheses.

The valence of the effect of types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) on price fairness is conditional on the market structure and the degree of innovation associated with the new product offering. Downstream (as opposed to upstream) coopetition is much more detrimental to perceptions of price fairness in a concentrated market than in a competitive and fragmented market. However, within a competitive market, downstream coopetition may lead to greater price fairness perception than upstream coopetition when the new product offering is highly innovative.

The current study uses lab experiments with fictitious scenarios and focuses on two moderating variables: market structure and innovation perceptions. Future research may use field experiments and explore additional moderating variables that may annihilate the negative effect of downstream coopetition on price fairness perception, especially in a concentrated market.

In concentrated markets, firms should opt for upstream rather than downstream coopetition to limit the negative effect the announcement of coopetition has on price fairness evaluation. However, within a competitive market, when the new product offering resulting from coopetition is associated with a high perceived degree of innovation, firms should opt for downstream rather than upstream coopetition because of its positive impact on price fairness evaluation.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that new product development from coopetition has important implications for the perception of price fairness, leading to positive or negative effects depending on market structure and the degree of innovation of the new product offering. It then explores the conditions under which types of coopetition (upstream/downstream) might backfire.

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.

Increasing environmental uncertainty, more demanding customers, rapid technological growth and rising capital costs have all forced firms to evolve from collaborating with buyers and suppliers to collaborating with their competitors and that is called coopetition. The purpose of this paper is to better understand the antecedents and outcomes associated with coopetition.

Building from the existing literature and three theoretical foundations, resource-based theory, resource dependence theory and game theory, the authors develop a model showing the antecedents and outcomes of coopetition and associated propositions of coopetition. Using a semi-structured interview process of 21 industry executives, the authors offer empirical support for the proposed coopetition model and propositions.

Firms are increasingly dependent on the knowledge and expertise in external organizations to innovate, solve problems and improve supply chain performance. This research suggests that there is a value for firms to consider coopetition as a part of their inter-firm strategies.

The semi-structured interview process used in this research provided a wealth of information and executive experiences in coopetition. The interviews, however, only provide a single perspective of collaborative engagements with competitors. Multiple perspectives of each project would add value to this research.

Collaboration among buyers and suppliers have been well researched; however, there has not been as much research on coopetition. This research provides a new area for future research for academics and offers suggestions for managers to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their coopetition projects.

Studies on inter-firm relationships have recently shifted their attention from dyadic networks to more globally driven network structures. This condition occurs because embeddedness in global network structures may improve firm innovation and performance. In addition, the improvement of firm innovativeness and performance seems higher when globally networked firms both compete and cooperate between and among them. In this paper, we categorize the simultaneous interplay of cooperation and competition in the global arena as global network coopetition (GNC). Under GNC, multinational enterprises act jointly with their global partners-rivals to improve performance, at the same time by sharing complementary resources (cooperation side) and by undertaking independent actions to enhance their own performance (competition side). This paper aims to expand existing research on network and global coopetition by shedding light on the effects of coopetition between and among firms belonging to global network structures on value capture and innovation performance.

Using a sample of 100 firms belonging to 14 industries organized in 47 global networks of different sizes, the authors conducted a longitudinal empirical study over the period 2000-2014 covering 1,098 observations, 1,717 interfirm relationships and 78 inter-networks linkages. A multiple regression model on panel data with random effects was conducted on the sample of 1,098 observations related to the global automotive industry to test the research hypotheses.

Findings show that GNC enhances firm performance and innovation outcomes. In addition to GNC, structural characteristics such as network size, network position and network diversity have significant positive or negative effects on innovation and performance outcomes of firms belonging to these global network structures.

Our research offers a contribution to the literature dealing with global networked structures’ effects on firm innovation performance. In fact, it effectively complements prior work on outcomes of coopetition between firms embedded in complex network structures. It also advances research in the area by introducing the notion of GNC as a network by which firms can enhance their innovation performance and, therefore, their global innovation performance. This study has some limitations. First, we acknowledge that it is focused only on 14 global coopetitive networks. It could be promising to extend the scope to integrate other networks. Second, our measures of firm actions as based on a content analysis of news reports related to firms. It would be important to complement this data collection by conducting a qualitative analysis (interviews). Atlast, it could be promising to include the study of customer needs in the new product development process.

Our study also offers some insights into the management of coopetition. In fact, by taking into account the existence of a context in which global coopetition networks play a role, managers may be better positioned to effectively deal with the paradox of being a partner of their direct rivals to improve their firms’ innovativeness and, consequently, achieve good performance, on the one hand, and to maintain relationships within several networks by taking into account their structural properties such as centrality and diversity, on the other hand.

We contribute to extant network coopetition literature in two ways. First, we introduce the notion of GNC to detect coopetition occurrence in global network structures. GNC refers to a context where actors in various networks belonging to different industries and geographies cooperate in a one (or more) innovative project/s, while simultaneously keeping on competing within and between their networks. Second, we contribute to network coopetition by analyzing specific GNC effects on firm innovation performance. In so doing, we can provide a deeper analytical understanding of GNC performance effects on firms operating in global network contexts.