Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe

Prior research highlighted the prevalence of coopetition as a strategy for innovation in high-tech industries for several reasons but the link between forms of coopetition and innovation is still understudied. In order to fill this gap in the literature, this study attempts to answer the following question: which form of coopetition favors which type of innovation? The results of an embedded case study approach of five Celtic-Plus projects (European Eureka Program) in the wireless telecommunication sector show that two forms of coopetition exist: multiple and dyadic. While multiple coopetition is successfully pursued for radical innovation, dyadic coopetition is more suitable for incremental innovation. Different innovation objectives lead to different levels of value creation/appropriation tensions between coopetitors. In order for competitors to pursue radical or incremental innovation successfully, different levels of social capital related to different choices of partners are needed. The role of social capital levels as a moderating factor between value creation/appropriation tensions and innovation type is discussed in detail. The study proposes a conceptual model that links coopetition strategy motives to the types of coopetition and their results in terms of radical or incremental innovation. Finally, a framework that helps firms to balance between multiple/dyadic–vertical/horizontal collaboration according to the levels of value creation/appropriation tensions and social capital is proposed.     

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.     

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.     

A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding

While research on the phenomenon of coopetition has dramatically increased during the last years, this line of inquiry often embodies a loosely connected body of work with fragmented themes, underdeveloped concepts, and little work explaining coopetition at multiple levels. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review of the field, and based on a final set of 142 contributions, synthesize the disparate research into a coherent whole by developing an overarching and dynamic multilevel model. We first systematize diverse conceptualizations of coopetition with respect to different levels into The Actor and The Activity Schools of Thought. Then we integrate major critical themes into a Driver, Process, Outcomes (DPO) framework, and offer a Blended School of Thought to show how different levels are intertwined and affect each other. Next, we develop a multilevel conceptual model of coopetition by integrating the Blended School into the DPO framework. This model helps future research better understand how the phenomena of coopetition at one level of analysis are distinct, yet interlinked, from coopetition at other levels, and in so doing, provides a richer and more complete perspective of the phenomenon of coopetition. Finally, we identify promising research avenues and suggest how future research can strengthen this line of inquiry.     

Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry

The Finnish forest industry is sustainable, well-established, internationally oriented and successful. For companies in such a basic industry, an industry that features mainly bulk products and relatively small domestic markets, sustainability in business may hinge on long-term strategic choices. It is proposed in this paper that it is not only strong domestic competition, but also—and especially—coopetition traditions (simultaneous cooperation and coopetition) that are the crucial factors contributing to the success of the industry. This article contributes to the literature by providing industry-level tools, namely a coopetition framework and combined coopetition typology. The findings indicate that coopetition traditions have been present throughout the activities of the Finnish forest industry, enabling sustainability of the industry to a significant extent. Managerial and theoretical implications are also discussed.     

Coopetition research - A systematic literature review on recent accomplishments and trajectories

Research in the field of coopetition, which describes firms simultaneously competing and collaborating to create value, has recently gained enormous momentum. Over the period of 2015 to 2020, scholars published more high-quality studies on this subject than in the entire 25-year history of coopetition research. Despite the relevance of these contributions, their fragmented nature and disjuncture from prior studies limit a connected understanding of the current standing of the field. Our analysis addresses this gap by systematically reviewing, comparing, and connecting a selected sample of 161 recent articles with the body of research established prior to 2015. Our study makes three main contributions. We (1) structure and connect past and present coopetition research across five identified research dimensions: Antecedents, execution, interaction, outcomes, and levels of coopetition. We (2) supplement this review with a qualitative trend analysis, identifying emerging themes for the future of the field. By combining past and present perspectives with the future outlook, we (3) provide a comprehensive, unique, and updated perspective on coopetition research, unifying it into a cohesive, overarching framework. Lastly, we explain crucial interdependencies and suggest areas for future research before we conclude the study.     

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.     

The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent,ambidextrous managers,and knowledge sharing

The study investigates the significance of strategic intent, manager's ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing routines for firms in their quest to pursue coopetition. We utilize the resource-based view and the dynamic capabilities theory to ground our hypotheses. We test the hypotheses using the data collected from 313 firms that engage in coopetition relationships through an online survey. The findings forward knowledge sharing and ambidextrous managers as intervening variables, in that when complemented with knowledge sharing, a firm's strategic intent could better guide the firm's managers to pursue coopetition successfully. Findings further advocate that knowledge sharing complements to enable the relationship between a firm's strategic intent and its ambidextrous managers, as well as the relationship between strategic intent and coopetition. Furthermore, results also indicate that ambidextrous managers, with a skillset of a combination of exploration and exploitation, are positively associated to coopetition. Overall, the findings make important theoretical as well as empirical contributions to the coopetition and strategic alliance literature.     

Organizational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: The impact of leadership and organizational structure on cross-functional coopetition

Cross-functional coopetition (the joint occurrence of cooperation and competition between departments) has received increasing interest from academia and practice. However, there is still little evidence on how cross-functional coopetition can be fostered. We investigate in how far leadership styles (consideration and participation) and organizational structures (centralization and formalization) can be employed to enable a firm's management favoring cross-functional coopetition between departments. Analyzing survey data from 234 German companies, we demonstrate that both consideration and participation have a positive effect on cross-functional coopetition. Additionally, we find that formalization has positive effect on cross-functional coopetition, whereas the effect of centralization is negative. We show that our findings are valid for a multitude of organizational cultures. Finally, we derive implications for research and practice as well as avenues for future research.     

Spectrum sharing in the gray space

There has been considerable effort to let more wireless devices operate in white space spectrum, that is within frequency bands and geographic areas where no wireless devices are active. Making white space available is certainly useful, but there are other sharing opportunities as well, some of which have been obscured by dangerous misconceptions about the concept of unused spectrum. This paper discusses allowing more devices to operate safely in gray space spectrum, that is spectrum that is actively being used in that transmissions are underway—something many economic models assume is impossible. The paper focuses on primary–secondary sharing, so devices gaining access to spectrum operate on a secondary basis in a way that never causes harmful interference to primary systems. Examples of primary–secondary gray space sharing mechanisms are described in which devices are allowed to share spectrum with broadcasting, radar, and cellular systems. Quantitative analysis shows that it is technically possible to support significant communications among secondary devices in spectrum that is already heavily used by cellular or radar. However, gray space sharing generally causes primary and secondary systems to be more technically interdependent than white space sharing, so different policy and governance structures are needed. Secondary market rules can support gray space sharing in cases where there is a single primary spectrum user, such as a cellular carrier. In cases where technology is static, the regulator may be able to control access for secondary devices. However, in cases with multiple primary users and multiple secondary users of spectrum, as might be seen in bands with radar for example, a new kind of governance body will be needed to facilitate spectrum sharing.     

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.     

Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges

Research on coopetition has been conducted for more than two decades. However, several concepts remain that require elaboration. A study on the literature shows that there is a lack of unified definitions, as various definitions have been employed in previous accomplished research. In this article we suggest that the early definition of coopetition, as a dual relationship between firms that simultaneously cooperate and compete needs to be refined. Our new definition suggests that coopetition is a paradoxical relationship between two or more actors, regardless of whether they are in horizontal or vertical relationships, simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions. We also highlight important contributions to the field, and some shortcomings that point to future challenges for coopetition research. Finally, we put forward five directions for future research: (1) understand the balancing of cooperation and competition, (2) understand the coopetition paradox and engendered tension, (3) apply a multilevel perspective on coopetition (4) understand the dynamics of coopetitive interaction, and (5) understand how coopetition impacts business models and strategy.     

Pursuit of rigor in research: Illustration from coopetition literature

We propose that rigor consists of three key aspects: conceptual (the theoretical lens, constructs, and logic used to understand a phenomenon), methodological (how data are collected and analyzed to capture a phenomenon), and empirical (how findings are organized, distilled, and related to the theory). We discuss rigor in the context of coopetition research and explain how rigor could be enhanced in future research. For each aspect of rigor, we discuss what it means to conduct rigorous research, review the current state of coopetition research using a rigor lens, and systematically discuss ways of improving rigor in future research. We suggest that pursuit of research with greater level of rigor would help increase the impact of coopetition research and contribute to the creation of cumulative knowledge on the topic.     

Standardization as emerging content in technology education at all levels of education

Integration of standardization into different levels of technology education has surfaced as a critical issue for educational practitioners and policy makers at national and regional (APEC, EU) level. In this paper, we describe and analyze empirical data collected from 118 educational experiences and practices about technology standards and standardization in 21 countries of a regional variety. Specifically, this research examines standardization education programs these countries have implemented, and explores suggestive indications for the design and development of an educational policy for standardization. Online surveys, offline interviews, face-to-face meetings and case studies have been used to determine the way these standardization education programs are segmented and implemented in different contexts. The findings are consolidated into a framework for standardization education. The framework presents an applicable combination of target groups (who), appropriate learning objectives (why), probable program operators (where), prospective contents modules (what), and preferred teaching methods (how). This framework may contribute to planning and implementing more inclusive standardization education programs.     

Measuring efficiency and ICT ecosystem impact: Hardware vs. software industry

The ICT industry is reshaping itself through convergence and coopetition across the ecosystem. In particular, many ICT companies have been trying to achieve both hardware and software capabilities to accelerate innovation. To understand the changes in the ICT industry, we empirically study the hardware and software industries using the ecosystem framework. We estimate the efficiency levels of the hardware and software industries in China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States (US) using stochastic frontier analysis and meta frontier analysis, and we examine the effects of the ICT ecosystem structure on efficiency levels using a Tobit regression. We find that the US, which is the global ICT leader, performs significantly better than other countries, with the biggest technology gap ratios in both hardware and software, and South Korea, which has the most hardware-centric industrial structure among the four countries, has the biggest efficiency gap between the hardware and software industries. Tobit results further reveal that a well-balanced ecosystem is important in achieving high efficiency in both hardware and software, and the effect is much higher in the software industry than in the hardware industry.     

Critical success factors in coopetition: Evidence on a business network

Coopetition in the literature of business networks has been discussed as a base strategy to potentiate competitiveness. This research investigates the main inter-relationship factors among the companies that are part of a network involving cooperation and competition, as well as their relationship in coopetition. This research discusses these questions through a review of the literature on coopetition and its application in business networks, basing the analysis on the critical success factors (CSF). Our analysis is conducted in the gastronomic industry, obtaining results through an exploratory investigation, conducted by applying the model suggested by Petter (2014) in a business network, attesting the means of the critical success factors and their correlations on the suggested dimensions and on coopetition. The main results for the critical success factors in coopetition indicate the importance of governance to maintain business networks, of cooperation to leverage innovative competencies, and that companies that have lower competencies regarding financial resources are more engaged in cooperation.     

Revisiting Wireless Internet Connectivity: 5G vs Wi-Fi 6

In recent years, significant attention has been directed toward the fifth generation of wireless broadband connectivity known as ‘5G’, currently being deployed by Mobile Network Operators. Surprisingly, there has been considerably less attention paid to ‘Wi-Fi 6’, the new IEEE 802.1ax standard in the family of Wireless Local Area Network technologies with features targeting private, edge-networks. This paper revisits the suitability of cellular and Wi-Fi in delivering high-speed wireless Internet connectivity. Both technologies aspire to deliver significantly enhanced performance, enabling each to deliver much faster wireless broadband connectivity, and provide further support for the Internet of Things and Machine-to-Machine communications, positioning the two technologies as technical substitutes in many usage scenarios. We conclude that both are likely to play important roles in the future, and simultaneously serve as competitors and complements. We anticipate that 5G will remain the preferred technology for wide-area coverage, while Wi-Fi 6 will remain the preferred technology for indoor use, thanks to its much lower deployment costs. However, the traditional boundaries that differentiated earlier generations of cellular and Wi-Fi are blurring. Proponents of one technology may argue for the benefits of their chosen technology displacing the other, requesting regulatory policies that would serve to tilt the marketplace in their favour. We believe such efforts need to be resisted, and that both technologies have important roles to play in the marketplace, based on the needs of heterogeneous use cases. Both technologies should contribute to achieving the goal of providing affordable, reliable, and ubiquitously available high-capacity wireless broadband connectivity.     

The interplays of coopetition,conflicts, trust,and efficiency process innovation in vertical B2B relationships

In this study, we examine the interplays among coopetition, conflicts, trust, and efficiency process innovation in vertical business-to-business (B2B) relationships. We posit that, in vertical B2B relationships, coopetition is positively associated with efficiency process innovation. Such association is also mediated by conflicts (i.e., affective and cognitive), thus resulting in the indirect effects of vertical coopetition on efficiency process innovation through affective and cognitive conflicts. In addition, we hypothesize that the conflict-based indirect effects are contingent on the trust level in the coopetitive relationships. We then empirically test the proposed hypotheses, using survey data collected from two international trade fairs. The results yield support for the positive association between vertical coopetition and efficiency process innovation. The mediating role of affective conflict in the indirect effect of vertical coopetition on efficiency process innovation is also supported, but that of cognitive conflict is not. Finally, the results indicate that trust moderates the indirect effect of vertical coopetition on efficiency process innovation through cognitive conflict but not through affective conflict. The implications of our findings for future research and managerial practices are also discussed.     

Always play against par? The effect of inter-team coopetition on individual team productivity

Current research lacks a deeper explanation of inter-team coopetition as a potential source of improved organizational performance on a micro-level. To fill this gap, our paper explores how inter-team coopetition influences individual team productivity. Building on social identity theory, we hypothesize that inter-team competition and inter-team coopetition both have a positive influence on individual team productivity with inter-team competition having a stronger influence. We further argue that organizational identification has a positive moderating effect on the link between inter-team coopetition and individual team productivity. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a laboratory experiment with 240 university students in which we simulated team scenarios using the puzzle board game Ubongo. Our findings confirm a positive effect of inter-team competition and coopetition on individual team productivity. In case of a high organizational identification, inter-team coopetition will boost individual team productivity further. Our paper improves the understanding of coopetition within the boundaries of the firm and the circumstances under which inter-team coopetition enhances individual team productivity and ultimately organizational performance. We also advance the literature on social identity theory by applying it to the organization’s micro-levels in the context of inter-team coopetition.     

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.