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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Interorganizational collaboration strategies and innovation abandonment: The more the merrier?

Investments in innovation activities involve uncertainty. Abandonments of innovative projects are frequent and can entail great losses. Interorganizational collaboration can help a firm to leverage and complement its own competencies and technologies, contrasting the factors that may cause the abandonment of innovation activities. This article shows that firms collaborating with a wider network of external partners to conduct their innovation activities are less likely to abandon them. The article also analyses how different categories of partners among customers & suppliers, competitors, consultants & private R&D institutions, universities & public R&D institutions are associated with the risk of innovation abandonment. Finally, the results show that international collaborations are more likely associated with innovation abandonment than domestic ones. Strategic and theoretical implications are drawn.     

Coopetition,standardization and general purpose technologies: A framework and an application

We argue that coopetition and standardization are important dimensions in the analysis of general-purpose technologies (GPT). We synthesize ideas from GPT, standardization, and coopetition literatures and introduce a framework for empirical analysis of GPTs that are enabled by standards development and related coopetition. We apply this framework and analyze the role of coopetition in standardization of wireless cellular technology, which has been recently discussed as a GPT. We document that coopetition and standardization have been associated with increasing improvement, innovation spawning, and pervasiveness—the characteristics of GPTs—in the context of wireless cellular technology. The perspective of standardization and coopetition could shed further light on the technological progress and evolution related to emerging GPT candidates, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Coopetition as an entrepreneurial process: Interplay of causation and effectuation

The present study views coopetition as an entrepreneurial process that involves coping with uncertainty, risk-taking behavior, exploring and exploiting opportunities, and developing innovative solutions. It also shows that coopetition can be not only an intended but also an emergent process with low levels of goal specificity, which enables the incorporation of effectuation theory into coopetition research. The empirical part of the article is based on a longitudinal case study of three media companies from Finland that compete and cooperate simultaneously. Our results demonstrate that coopetitive interactions combine effectuation and causation, and this interplay depends on stages of the coopetition process and on managerial levels. Therefore, the effectuation lens allows to examine coopetition process from a novel micro-perspective of individual decision makers. Our cross-disciplinary study concludes with outlining new avenues for future research in both coopetition and entrepreneurial effectuation.     

Coopetition close to the customer — A case study of a small business network

Coopetition interactions are traditionally divided into competing activities close to the customer, called output activities (e.g., sales and marketing), and cooperating activities far from the customer, known as input activities (e.g., logistics, production and R&D). In many coopetition networks, most of the cooperation has been in input activities, essentially meaning that little research is conducted in coopetition business networks with cooperative activities close to the customer. This article closes the gap by investigating coopetition in an ICT business network comprising small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the B2B sector. The purpose of this paper is to increase understanding of cooperation between competing firms by analyzing the success factors of cooperative activities close to the customer that lead to a positive outcome of coopetition. The results of the study show that some case companies are more competition oriented, whereas the others are more cooperation oriented. At the activity level of analysis, cooperation occurs in branding, marketing, joint customers, and delivery of services; whereas companies compete in local services, marketing campaigns, and pricing. In addition, our study shows that certain success factors for coopetition are highlighted, particularly in output activities such as activeness, geographical distance and personal resources.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Organizational culture and coopetition: An exploratory study of the features,models and role in the Polish Aviation Industry

This study explores the importance of organizational culture for coopetition, and identifies the cultural profile of coopetitors operating within an innovation network. Although organizational culture's role in interorganizational collaboration is long established, coopetition settings have not received a similar attention. This exploratory study sheds light on the role of culture for coopetition, and scrutinizes organizational culture using the Competing Values Framework. Our findings suggest cultural differences between coopetitors versus non-coopetitors. Coopetitors display a cultural profile typical to hierarchy, as they describe themselves as more stable than flexible and more internally than externally focused in their strategic orientation. Interestingly the culture model typical for coopetitors, has been identified as the most distant for non-coopetitors, while the second typical model for non-coopetitors i.e. adhocracy has been identified as the most distant for coopetitors.     

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.