Value co-creation and appropriation of platform-based alliances in cooperative advertising

Digital platforms help develop the open value co-creation strategic alliances, reshape traditional B2B relationships, and promote inclusive social innovation. This research explores the nature of coopetition between the digital platform and its participants. The focus is on how the platform-based alliance balances the contradiction between value creation and appropriation. The support evidence derives from a Stackelberg game in the context of cooperative advertising. Either the platform or the participant supporting advertising in the alliance prompts a Pareto improvement for all players. But the increased profit would be mainly occupied by the dominant platform. The incentive mechanism of profit sharing can promote the alliance to co-create value in a sustainable manner. The game illustrates the significance of cooperative relationships to co-create a larger total value and the existence of an unequal win-win relationship in the strategic alliance. The contradictory logic of cooperation and competition can be accommodated in the platform-based alliance. The dynamic coopetition is involved in a partially convergent interest structure and impacted by power asymmetry. The results highlight the balance between the tensions and harmonies through value creation and appropriation.     

Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability

This study examines why some firms are better able than others to reap benefits from collaborating with their competitors in innovation. Whereas on the general level, collaborative innovation has been studied widely, and firm‐specific success factors in collaboration between competitors (i.e., coopetition) have not been exhaustively addressed. Earlier literature describes coopetition as a risky but potentially rewarding relationship in which sharing, learning, and protection of knowledge are recognized as the key issues determining the possible benefits and hazards. This study provides evidence of factors related to this, suggesting that the firm's ability to acquire knowledge from external sources (potential absorptive capacity) and to protect its innovations and core knowledge against imitation (appropriability regime) are relevant in increasing the innovation outcomes of collaborating with its competitors. This study also distinguishes between incremental and radical innovations as an outcome of coopetition, and provides differing implications for the two innovation types. The empirical evidence for the study was gathered from a cross‐industry survey conducted on Finnish markets. The data are analyzed with multivariate multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis suggest that (1) potential absorptive capacity and appropriability regime of the firm both have a positive effect in the pursuit of incremental innovations in coopetition, and (2) in the case of radical innovations, appropriability regime has a positive effect, while the effect of absorptive capacity is not statistically significant. However, the results also indicate that there is a moderating relationship between these variables, in that the potential absorptive capacity is positively associated with creation of radical innovations within high levels of appropriability regime. These results yield important theoretical and managerial implications. As a whole, the results presented in this study provide new evidence on which types of firms can reap success in the challenging task of collaborative innovation with rivals. In the case of incremental innovation, a firm‐level emphasis on knowledge sharing and learning will positively affect the results of coopetition, as will an emphasis on knowledge protection. Thus, when incremental developments are pursued in coopetition, firms should not only seek to exchange knowledge to create value but also remember to secure the firm‐specific core knowledge within the firm's borders to stay competitive. On the other hand, when the firm is pursuing radical innovation with its rivals, the heaviest emphasis should be on protecting its existing core knowledge and also emerging novel innovations and market opportunities. Capabilities in knowledge acquisition are also beneficial in these cases, but the full benefits of knowledge exchange realize only when the firm's knowledge protection mechanisms are sufficiently strong, allowing for safe knowledge exchange between rivals.     

Creation and appropriation of socio-environmental value in coopetition

Although much has been written about value in coopetition initiatives, the dynamics of value creation and appropriation remain poorly articulated. This paper explores the types of value and the dynamics of value creation and appropriation when competitors cooperate.The research provides some suggestions towards semantic clarity and introduces new dimensions to the existing value creation and appropriation literature. We also present the Coopetition Value Matrix (CVM), an expanded typology that aids in the understanding of value dynamics in coopetition. Constructing the CVM required the incorporation of stakeholder theory and the concept of socio-environmental value, two aspects that are under-explored in coopetition research.We applied the CVM to a case of environmental coopetition in the South African wine industry, which provided us with empirical illustrations of the dynamic interaction of different types of value.     

Interfirm coopetition,interfirm knowledge creation,and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition

This paper investigates whether and how interfirm coopetition—the combination of cooperation and competition—affects collaborative innovation performance in competitive environments. We address this issue by introducing interfirm knowledge creation as a mediating mechanism based on knowledge creation theory and by examining the moderating effects of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition. The hypotheses are tested using survey data from a sample of 170 Chinese high-tech firms. The results show that interfirm knowledge creation mediates the impact of interfirm coopetition on collaborative innovation performance. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the positive relationship between interfirm coopetition and interfirm knowledge creation is stronger under higher levels of environmental competitiveness but weaker under higher levels of dysfunctional competition. The positive relationship between interfirm knowledge creation and collaborative innovation performance is more evident under higher levels of environmental competitiveness. These findings enrich the interfirm coopetition literature, contribute to knowledge creation theory by extending it to the interfirm context, and provide a better understanding and useful advice for enterprise managers and government officials.     

“Vertical coopetition”: The key account perspective

Why do key accounts combine opposing types of relationship with their suppliers? The author has chosen to term this new hybrid form of supplier relationship management, which combines cooperation and price-competitive transactions and reflects the tension between value creation and value appropriation, “vertical coopetition.” She investigates the use of this concept in the context of an in-depth qualitative study, involving, firstly, an exploratory field study and, secondly, four case studies involving leading industrial MNCs. The results indicate that “vertical coopetition” occurs in two forms: when the price-competitive approach is predominant but some cooperation features are still to be found; and when cooperation is predominant, but appeals to competition are still made. Mutually opposed aspects of each form are linked and explained by three pivotal mechanisms, which the author calls, “strengthening”, “correction” and “commuting”. Finally, the study reveals that, increasingly, the key account's brands or Business Unit value¹ are explanatory forces of “vertical coopetition”.     

Linking joint value creation to the interplay of competition and cooperation: A fuzzy set approach

The aim of this paper is to explore the link between joint value creation and the varying nature of simultaneity. Joint value creation is a central concept in cooperative strategies and more broadly in the strategic management field. When cooperating with competitors firms have value creation intent, but face conflicting logics arising from the simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition. This study adopts a two continua approach to analyze coopetition at both the department level and the organizational level.We explore the conjunctural causality based on two multipartner alliances in the pharmaceutical industry. The fsQCA allows detecting multiple causal paths between different intensities of cooperation and competition at both the department and the firm levels (conditions) to joint value creation (outcome). A key contribution of this paper is the conceptualization and empirical demonstration of the relation between the joint value creation and the coopetition intensity. Different types of coopetition engagements generate different outcomes in terms of joint value creation. The results show that high intensity of cooperation combined with high intensity of competition is significant for joint value creation. Unbalanced intensities of both elements, as well as low coopetition intensity, do not lead to joint value creation.     

The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem

Research summary: Firms introducing disruptive innovations into multisided ecosystems confront the disruptor's dilemma: gaining the support of the very incumbents they disrupt. Through a longitudinal study of TiVo, a company that pioneered the Digital Video Recorder, we examine how these firms may address this dilemma. Our analysis reveals how TiVo navigated coopetitive tensions by continually adjusting its strategy, its technology platform, and its relational positioning within the evolving U.S. television industry ecosystem. We theorize how (1) disruption may affect not just specific incumbents, but also the entire ecosystem; (2) coopetition is not just dyadic, but also multilateral and intertemporal, and (3) strategy is both a deliberative and emergent process involving continual adjustments, as the disruptor attempts to balance coopetitive tensions over time. Managerial summary: New entrants confront a dilemma when they introduce a disruptive innovation into an existing business ecosystem, viz., how can they gain the support of the incumbents that their innovation disrupts? Confronting this “disruptor's dilemma”, the disruptor must consider several issues: How might it pitch its innovation to attract end customers and yet reduce the threat of disruption perceived by ecosystem incumbents? How can the innovation be modified to fit into legacy systems while transforming them? Based on an in‐depth analysis of TiVo and its entrepreneurial journey, we explore the strategies disruptors can deploy to address these issues. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An incubation perspective on social innovation: the London Hub – a social incubator

In the context of incubators, particularly those that are driven to achieving social objectives, this paper investigates core processes that support the development of social innovation. Social innovation, as this paper argues, is underpinned by a new form of social collaboration and engagement built upon strong forms of sharing knowledge and learning. Coupled with this is the element of social capital reinforced by entrepreneurship and leadership that promotes sustainability in the community. These factors drive innovative thinking and ways of engaging among stakeholders in order to create new forms of socio-economic impact. Such value-creating activity occurs in firms that operate within incubators involving a wide range of stakeholders who work through networks to co-create and meet social challenges. Through a case study of a social incubator and an incubatee, we demonstrate the core processes that irradiate the argument on social innovation. The contribution of this paper is threefold: First, social innovation is an emerging area of research, of which there is a dearth in terms of examining the processes empirically. We address the gap in this field by demonstrating the value of social collaboration and engagement using different innovation models. Second, we establish links between social innovation and incubation using the concept of social capital. This allows us to achieve our third contribution: exemplification of a dyadic value-based partnership and collaboration processes between an incubator and an incubatee, through activities driven by social innovation that aim to have social impact. The paper concludes with practice implications and suggests directions for future research.     

Coopetition strategy as interrelated praxis and practices on multiple levels

Existing research often considers coopetition as something occurring between organizations on a meso level, that is, a relational or company level. This study explores coopetition strategy in the form of activities from a multilevel perspective. The focus is on coopetition praxis and practices and how these are interrelated on the micro, meso and macro levels. In order to improve our understanding of coopetition activities, we use the strategy-as-practice approach and integrate it with coopetition research. The empirical part of this study is based on a single qualitative case study of a coopetitive relationship between a large multinational company and its supplier. The findings show how praxis on the micro level influences, and is influenced by, practices on the meso and macro levels. Coopetition strategy is shaped over time through the relationship between praxis and practices on different levels. Our study contributes to coopetition research by focusing on coopetition strategy as something that is implemented on multiple levels, including the individual (micro) and network (macro) levels alongside the meso level.     

Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders

There is a renewed interest among strategy scholars in the relationship between stakeholder theory and the dynamics of value creation‐appropriation in firms. Further advancements in this field are arguably impeded by an incomplete conceptualization and measurement of value and by scant characterization of the different patterns of stakeholder value appropriation. We develop a conceptual framework—based on an analytical taxonomy of value creation and appropriation—consistent with a more complete notion of value and wherein the trade‐offs in stakeholder value appropriation can be included. In essence, our analytical taxonomy contributes to enlarge the spectrum of value creation‐appropriation scenarios to be considered by researchers working on the stakeholder view of strategy. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Appropriability regime for radical and incremental innovations

In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.     

Unpacking the management of Oligo-coopetition strategies in the absence of a moderating third party

Recent research has highlighted the importance of management for the success of dyadic coopetition strategies. Coopetition, however, does not always occur in dyadic settings. Oligo-coopetition strategies, i.e., coopetition strategy among more than two but only a small number of coopetitors, and its management remain largely understudied. Oligo-coopetition strategy simultaneously increases both the potential benefits and risks of coopetition. Past research highlights the key role of third parties in managing oligo-coopetition. However, what happens when there is no such third party? We investigate this question through a longitudinal case study of Total Group in its oil and gas exploration and production projects. The results outline how companies manage oligo-coopetition strategy without third parties. More precisely, the results first highlight three strategies of oligo-coopetition: (1) “shareholder” coopetition, (2) “vertical” coopetition, and (3) “combined vertical and horizontal” coopetition. The results, second, outline the specific organizational designs and management principles associated with these three strategies of coopetition.     

Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review,Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions

Product innovation is a key to organizational renewal and success. Relative to other forms of innovation, radical product innovations offer unprecedented customer benefits, substantial cost reductions, or the ability to create new businesses, any of which should lead to superior organizational performance. In other words, a radical product innovation capability is a dynamic capability, one that enables the organization to maintain alignment with rapidly evolving customer needs in high‐velocity environments. Extensive research has been conducted on the antecedents to an incremental/general product innovation capability, and meta‐analyses have been conducted to integrate the results from the various studies. However, whether and how a radical product innovation capability differs from an incremental product innovation capability is also critical. The purpose of this work is to develop a testable model of the antecedents to radical product innovation success. Based on an extensive literature review, a comprehensive set of organizational components that comprise a firm's radical product innovation capability is identified. These organizational components include senior leadership, organizational culture, organizational architecture, the radical product innovation development process, and the product launch strategy. Of course, each of these components has subcomponents that provide even more texture. This review highlights how the components of a radical innovation capability function differently from those for an incremental capability. In addition, this review strongly suggests that the direct effects models that dominate this literature underestimate the complexity of the interplay of components that comprise a radical product innovation capability. Thus, a model to demonstrate this interplay of these organizational components is provided. Illustrative research propositions are offered to provide guidance to researchers. Suggestions for executives and managers who are involved in the product development process and for scholars who seek to advance the state of knowledge in this area are offered in the conclusion.     

The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability

In this study, we apply a paradox perspective on coopetition to investigate the effects of coopetition paradox on managers' experience and perception of coopetitive tensions, and the role of coopetition capability in managing such tensions. We propose a theoretical model to posit that the intensity of coopetition paradox positively associates with managers' experience of external tension, which in turn lead them to perceive internal tension. Further, coopetition capability plays a dual role—moderates the relation between coopetition paradox and external tension, and reduces internal tension. We tested hypotheses on a representative multi-industry sample of 1532 firms in Sweden and the results confirm them. Our study contributes to understanding the critical role of coopetition capability that enables firms to maintain a moderate level of tension regardless of the intensity of coopetition paradox.     

The management of coopetitive tensions within multi-unit organizations

Coopetition strategy is often considered critical for firm performance (Gnyawali, He & Madhavan, 2008; Yami, Castaldo, Dagnino & Le Roy, 2010). However, this paradoxical strategy creates tension, especially when coopetition occurs within an organization (Tsai, 2002; Luo, Slotegraaf & Pan, 2006). This paper addresses existing knowledge gaps by providing the first analysis of the specific managerial methods and the key approaches needed to reduce internal tensions within multi-unit and multi-brand organizations. Using an in-depth study approach in the banking industry, we examine two exemplary cases: Crédit Agricole (CA), which is the leading bank in France and the third leading bank in Europe, and Banque Populaire Caisse d'Epargne (BPCE), which is the third leading bank in France. Our findings indicate that firms simultaneously use formal and informal coordination to manage coopetitive goals. Moreover, to reduce tensions due to coopetition, the banks have developed an original organizational model that allows for the distribution of the antagonist powers and fosters integration. The research shows that inter-unit projects balance responsibilities across the firm, while horizontal coordination and social interaction also eliminate blocking and facilitate decision making. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to examine the management of coopetitive tensions within a multi-unit and multi-brand organization.     

Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: a corporate social responsibility perspective

This paper examines the concept of open innovation within the context of corporate social responsibility. It demonstrates how the practice of open innovation unfolds in inter-organizational collaborations that involve the voluntary or charitable sector, outlining the findings of an explorative collective case study of eight voluntary dyadic partnerships between corporate and nonprofit organizations in the United Kingdom, which have resulted in innovation outcomes. Two generic approaches to open innovation were witnessed: firstly, a more exploratory approach to dyadic engagement activities that resulted in an emergent innovation process, and secondly, a focused and pre-determined search activity to exploit the resources of the nonprofit partner that demonstrated a more planned innovation process. Two distinct boundary-spanning roles were identified: in dyads exhibiting few organizational linkages, the role was associated with formal responsibilities from senior management to 'manage' innovation opportunities and outcomes. In dyads exhibiting high linkages, there was no such formality; the role was a 'conduit' to facilitate search and exploration to locate opportunities for innovation through idea exchange. Overall, this research demonstrates the value of an open innovation approach driven by the need to address societal and social issues (rather than those purely economic). Such practice broadens a firm's 'search' activities and delivers innovations in exchange for enhanced social legitimacy – acting innovation capital for future enterprising activities and market advantage.     

Balancing the Two Knowledge Dimensions in Innovation Efforts: An Empirical Examination among Pharmaceutical Firms

This study investigates the relationships between the two knowledge dimensions (knowledge breadth and knowledge depth) and two types of innovations (radical innovation and incremental innovation). While existing literature identifies knowledge in general as an important driver of innovation, the exact relationships between knowledge breadth/depth and incremental/radical innovations are not clear. Drawing from the knowledge‐based view, this study advances the understanding of the relationships between knowledge dimensions and types of innovations by hypothesizing a nonlinear relationship between knowledge breadth and radical innovation as well as a nonlinear relationship between knowledge depth and incremental innovation. Furthermore, the moderating effects of the interaction between knowledge breadth and knowledge depth on the above‐mentioned relationships are also examined. Due to the different natures of the two types of innovations, it is hypothesized that knowledge depth positively moderates the relationship between knowledge breadth and radical innovation while knowledge breadth negatively moderates the relationship between knowledge depth and incremental innovation. To empirically test the hypotheses, secondary data from multiple sources were collected on 64 pharmaceutical firms over 15 years. Due to the panel data structure and observed dispersion issues in the dependent variables, negative binomial random effects models were formulated to test the hypotheses. The statistical results largely support the proposed hypotheses. The results demonstrate that while knowledge breadth positively contributes to the development of radical innovations and knowledge depth positively contributes to the development of incremental innovations, both relationships are subject to diminishing returns. Furthermore, while the finding did support the negative moderating effect of the knowledge breadth on incremental innovation, the positive moderating effect of knowledge depth on radical innovation is not supported. While the effect is not explicitly hypothesized, knowledge breadth seems to have a direct impact on incremental innovation as well.     

Co‐creation in Radical Service Innovation: A Systematic Analysis of Microlevel Processes

This empirical paper presents the results of a detailed case‐study investigation of co‐creation in radical service innovation. The rationale for the paper is that detailed interventions must be tracked to offer a realistic account of how co‐creation occurs. This provides a strong empirical contribution to the emerging body of scholars developing the co‐creation paradigm, predominantly characterized by conceptual advances in service‐dominant logic. Our focus is on radical service innovation, which is disruptive in the sector. The overall aim of the paper is to unravel the nature of microlevel processes of co‐creation in radical service innovation. The study adopts sequential analysis to examine co‐creation. Patterns of sequences of actions and interactions associated with 40 incremental developments, involving multiple actors, are investigated. These co‐created innovative developments underpin the emergence of a radical telematics‐based motor insurance service. The findings suggest that the co‐creation path is not simple or uni‐faceted, and the paper unravels the nature of complex patterns of activities and interactions, Our in‐depth systematic analysis illuminates a combination approach with two main patterns of sequences: one dominated by ad‐hoc and enduring independent innovation activities by network actors and one dominated by lead‐firm innovation and interaction activity. The findings advance knowledge of the way co‐creation occurs in radical service innovation. The study results suggest that managerial attention be placed to, first, finding ways to induce independent innovative behavior from network partners and, second, to the development of interaction mechanisms to foster sharing and visualization of such innovation advances.     

Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity

Despite the growing number of articles on coopetition, research in the area still lacks insights into this phenomenon on an intraorganizational level. Therefore, this study examines the effect of cross-functional, firm-internal coopetition on organizational ambidexterity (i.e., exploitation and exploration) and the moderating role of social cohesion. Drawing on organizational learning theory and analyzing survey data obtained from 392 department heads and project leaders of new product development teams, we demonstrate that cross-functional coopetition has a significant positive effect on exploratory innovation. Moreover, we find support for the moderating influence of social cohesion on the relationship between coopetition and exploitative innovation. These results not only provide valuable insights for managers in the fields of new product development and innovation, they also highlight the need for further research on the dynamic interplay of competitive and cooperative elements within firms.     

Managing tension in coopetition through mutual dependence and asymmetries: A longitudinal study of a Norwegian R&D alliance

Strategic alliances between competitors (coopetition) is perceived to be full of tensions that needs to be managed. This study explore the evolution of a Norwegian coopetition alliance, through how firms handle tensions over time. The study finds that the firms experience a mutual dependence towards one another and that this dependence evolves over time. In the early phases of a coopetition alliance firms handle tension by relying on a structural dependence with their partners whereas firms move towards a more harmonious relationship with their partners by building a psychological dependence through trust and generosity. Further, the results indicate these dependencies might reduce the possible tensions related to asymmetries in size and knowledge between firms.