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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Blind date? Intermediaries as matchmakers on the way to start-up—industry coopetition

This article explores intermediaries as a missing link in initiating coopetition between established industry firms and start-ups. Research establishes that partner search and compatibility are critical success factors from the very beginning of coopetition. As many relationships fail owing to the absence of partner fit, knowledge on facing the challenge at this early stage is highly relevant. By applying a network perspective, we propose that intermediaries can bridge partners and hence overcome this initial hurdle. Based on a case study of an intermediary high-tech incubator, we examine the triad of start-ups, incubator, and established industry firms. Findings show how the involvement of an intermediary can facilitate the initiation of coopetition. The key contribution is an inductive model illustrating the interaction of the dimensions of incubator-initiated start-up–industry coopetition. We highlight an incubator's quality filter function evolving from bridging matchmaker and initial broker and demonstrate the added value to the initial partner search and compatibility. We enrich coopetition with network theory and provide implications on how incubators can provide an important foundation for establishing coopetition between start-ups and industry firms.     

Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance

This study empirically investigates an important question in the coopetition literature: to what extent does coopetition impact a firm's innovation performance? With a focus on the intensity of competition and intensity of cooperation of a focal firm with its alliance partners, our theory proposes that a moderate level of competition with alliance partners is more beneficial than a very high or a very low level of competition. We further develop the concept of “balance” in coopetition and examine how the interplay of competition and cooperation and the balance between the two matter for innovation performance. Results from our empirical study using data from the semiconductor industry show that competition and cooperation intensities have non-monotonic positive relationship with firm's coopetition-based innovation performance. Further, balanced coopetition (i.e., when competition is moderately high and cooperation is high) has a positive effect on innovation performance. A key contribution of this paper is the conceptualization and empirical demonstration of the effects of various aspects of coopetition such as competition dominant, cooperation dominant, and balanced coopetition on innovation performance.     

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.     

“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”.     

Value-creation-capture-equilibrium in new product development alliances: A matter of coopetition,expert power,and alliance importance

Alliances are often thought to be longer lasting and lead to better results when they are perceived as equal and fair in terms of how efforts and rewards are distributed. This study conceptualizes the value-creation-capture-equilibrium (VCCE) as the relative inputs and efforts made by alliance partners to create and capture innovation-related value. We seek to better understand the determinants of the VCCE in dyadic new product development (NPD) alliances. We focus on three factors from a focal firm's perspective: (1) the coopetition intensity with the alliance partner (i.e. simultaneous competition and collaboration), (2) the expert power of the alliance partner, and (3) the relative importance of the particular NPD alliance. We hypothesize that coopetition intensity stabilizes the VCCE. Furthermore, we assume that the partner's expert power and the focal firm's relative alliance importance negatively moderate the relationship between coopetition intensity and the VCCE. Based on a dataset of N = 471 NPD alliances of high-tech firms, we find partial support for our hypotheses and contribute towards a better understanding of the factors influencing the VCCE in NPD alliances.     

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.     

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.     

Managing tensions related to information in coopetition

This study seeks to provide insights into the management of tensions related to information in coopetition. The literature on coopetition management recommends a separation principle, an integration principle or a combination of both. Focusing on tensions related to information in coopetition at the project level, we consider which principle is most appropriate. We theoretically discuss the control mechanisms used to address information criticality and information appropriability. In addition, we conduct an in-depth case study of a space project involving two competitors, Astrium and Thales Alenia Space. First, we describe the tensions related to information that arose in the context of this coopetitive project. In particular, financial and technical information presented dilemmas. Second, we explain how the coopetitors used formal control mechanisms to separate critical information from non-critical information. Specifically, information that was critical to the project's success was shared through a common information system specially designed for the project, whereas non-critical information was withheld from the partner. Third, because formal control mechanisms were insufficient to address critical information that was also appropriable, we show how project managers implemented informal control mechanisms. For example, project managers transformed appropriable information into non-appropriable information by aggregating data and withholding details such as calculation methods and cost structures. Our findings suggest that the management of tensions related to information in coopetitive projects requires a combination of formal control mechanisms (to manage information criticality) and informal control mechanisms (to manage information appropriability).     

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.     

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.     

Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: Singular or plural governance?

This study researches how firms can improve their product innovation in coopetition alliances through alliance governance. Our survey-based study of 372 vertical alliances in the medical device industry contributes to a clarification of prior studies' contrasting findings on product innovation when coopetition is present in alliances. Our results show that the singular use of relational governance improves product innovativeness in vertical alliances that experience growing levels of coopetition. In contrast, the singular use of transactional governance reduces product innovativeness with growing coopetition. When firms apply both relational and transactional governance as plural governance, vertical coopetition alliances get access to new ways to improve their product innovativeness.     

Mapping the perspectives of coopetition and technology-based strategic networks: A case of smartphones

The aim of this study is to introduce and rearrange various coopetition perspectives and consider their implications in the context of a technology-based case study example from the smartphone industry and especially with the state of strategic networks between smartphone producers and operating systems at one chosen moment (autumn 2012). The case study analysis is based on a strategic map of the (technical) coalitions of firms (cf. Näsi et al., 2001). The most important introduced coopetitive features are present in the studied case. This study emphasizes in the literature review the dichotomy between contextual and procedural coopetition. However, this dichotomy is not solid in practice according to the studied case: the same firm might simultaneously have both contextual and procedural features. The study reveals this overlapping and multidimensional character of coopetition generally and its technological dimension in practice, and the general need to continue to study these coopetitive features. The study shows that contemporary theoretical typologies and frameworks of coopetition require experiments in order to direct the coopetition discussions toward the practical phenomena of business.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.