Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space

Coopetition has the potential to improve entrepreneurship and innovation. It will be prevalent in coworking-spaces building a growing field for individual and corporate entrepreneurship. The individuals’ physical closeness in the professional and social space of the coworking-space eases multifaceted transfers of explicit and implicit knowledge, stimulating creation, transfer, overhaul, and implementation of entrepreneurial ideas. While entrepreneurs in these coworking-spaces collaborate on sharing knowledge and resources and on finding creative ideas from which can breed new venture concepts, they simultaneously compete on the appropriation of values. Thus, entrepreneurs in coworking-spaces face coopetitive tensions of creating and appropriating the values. Based  on  interview data and secondary sources, this paper explains four different prototype institutions of coworking-spaces: the corporate coworking-space, the open corporate coworking-space, the consultancy coworking-space, and the independent coworking-space. Study explains different tensions of value creation and appropriation that occur within the coopetition in the different forms of coworking-spaces.     

Coopetition in New Product Development Alliances: Advantages and Tensions for Incremental and Radical Innovation

Coopetition (collaboration between competitors) can facilitate product innovation, but there is still debate about how it is suited to radical or incremental innovation. This paper argues that the early and later phases of coopetitive new product development (NPD) pose different benefits and risks for the innovation types. Building on the tensions approach to value creation and appropriation, we develop a series of hypotheses on the role of coopetition in NPD alliances and focal firm's innovation output. The hypotheses are tested on a quantitative data set of 1049 NPD alliances in the German medical and machinery sectors. The results show that, while coopetition is advantageous for incremental innovation in both pre‐launch and launch phases, radical innovation benefits from coopetition in the launch phase only.     

Organizational innovativeness and coopetition: a study of video game developers

Collaboration with rivals is viewed as a way to achieve superior performance of firms in terms of innovation output. Yet empirical results show that coopetition may either foster, hamper or be neutral to innovation. The motivation of our study resides in firms’ heterogeneity in terms of their innovative capacity, that is innovativeness, in order to better understand the complex relationship between coopetition and innovation. We explore the interdependency between organizational innovativeness and coopetition. Our study has been conducted in the Polish video game industry. The data has been collected through a survey administered to all 506 identified Polish video game developers, with an effective sample of 84 coopetitors. We run correlation and regression analyses in a multidimensional approach to organizational innovativeness and coopetition. Our findings show that coopetition is a popular strategy for video game developers, and is adopted by 68% of firms. Organizational innovativeness and its particular dimensions are positively and significantly related to both direct and indirect coopetition. Based on factor analysis we find its three components to be reliable: openness and encouragement to innovate; strategic innovative focus; and extrinsic monetary motivation. While extrinsic monetary motivation does not play a role in coopetition of video game developers, openness and encouragement to innovate stimulates especially indirect coopetition, while strategic innovative focus affects especially direct coopetition.     

How Does Centrality in Coopetition Networks Matter? An Empirical Investigation in the Mobile Telephone Industry

This research examines how a firm's position in a coopetitive network (formed through cooperation among firms within an industry) influences the extent of the firm's competitive aggressiveness and market performance. The authors collected data on the competitive and cooperative actions of firms in the mobile telephone industry from 2000 to 2006, using structured content analysis of news reports. The results show that the centrality of a firm in a coopetitive network contributes to the firm's competitive aggressiveness through increased volume and variety of competitive actions. Further, the more central a firm is in the network, the greater is its market performance. Firms that undertake more volume and variety of competitive actions improve their market performance. Overall, these results show that being in a central position in a coopetition network is quite advantageous for the firm.     

Strategy frames in coopetition: An examination of coopetition entry factors in high-tech firms

Collaboration with competitors offers unique advantages such as increasing market, innovation, and financial performance. However, the degree of coopetition adoption varies between firms, as does the ability to achieve intended outcomes. We address this variety through the lens of strategic frames, essential for understanding business environment interpretations that managers develop, interactions with other actors that they engage in, and the subsequent performance firms may achieve. We examine associations between external and internal coopetition factors as perceived by coopeting managers.To single out the coopetition factors seen by respondents as the most relevant and to evaluate their mutual associations, we apply traditional regression analyses on survey data collected from 352 high-technology firms in Poland. To fully embrace the causal complexity, we advance our regression-based insights by using a complementary necessary condition analysis (NCA) and bottleneck analysis.Our results suggest that coopeting managers place higher importance on customer-driven rather than on resource-driven coopetition factors when considered as sufficient leveraging factors. Still, the complementary NCA reveals internal resources as critical factors for the perception of external factors of coopetition. Finally, we identify external technological development as the most limiting bottleneck for the perception of most internal coopetition factors, highlighting coopetition as a technology-driven strategy.     

Managing Coopetitive Tensions at the Working‐group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team

This study seeks to provide insights into the management of coopetitive tensions at the working‐group level. We theoretically discuss the principles of separation and integration and a combination of both to manage coopetitive tensions at this level. An in‐depth case study of a space programme conducted by two competitors ? Astrium and Thales Alenia Space ? was conducted. At the organizational level, according to the separation principle, we found that the coopetitors implemented a Coopetitive Project Team separated from the rest of their organization. At the individual level, according to the integration principle, we evidenced that project managers internalize the coopetitive paradox. At the working‐group level, we revealed a new principle, that of co‐management. The co‐management principle, in the case of dyadic coopetition, relies on the implementation of a dual, equally shared governance structure and a dual management committee. To efficiently manage coopetitive tensions, firms are combining the separation principle at the organizational level, the co‐management principle at the working‐group level and the integration principle at the individual level.     

Do trust and distrust in coopetition matter to performance?

It is widely acknowledged that firms intensely engage in coopetition (i.e., simultaneous cooperation and competition) and obtain unique benefits from such relationships. However, limited knowledge exists about how and when coopetition intensity leads to superior performance. Building on the theoretical work documenting that both trust and distrust are critical for enhancing performance in interfirm relationships, we address the aforementioned gap by looking into the distinct yet beneficial roles of trust and distrust in coopetition. More specifically, we argue that whereas trust likely serves as an intervening mechanism through which coopetition intensity enhances relationship performance, distrust positively influences the association between coopetition intensity and relationship performance. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 225 Swedish firms engaged in coopetition, and provide empirical evidence that trust and distrust play distinct yet important roles in achieving superior performance from coopetition.     

Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation

This paper presents a model of innovation, knowledge brokering, that explains how some organizations are able to routinely innovate by recombining their past knowledge in new ways. While existing theories of organizational learning and innovation are useful, the links between them are crucial for understanding how existing knowledge becomes the raw materials from which individuals in organizations construct innovative solutions. This model develops these links by grounding processes of learning and innovation in the larger social context within which they occur. Using a microsociological perspective, this article draws together research spanning levels of analysis to explain innovation as the dissembling and reassembling of extant ideas, artifacts, and people. Previous research has suggested that firms spanning multiple domains may innovate by moving ideas from where they are known to where they are not, in the process creating new combinations of existing ideas. This paper more fully develops this process by linking the cognitive, social, and structural activities it comprises. Knowledge brokering involves exploiting the preconditions for innovation that reside within the larger social structure by bridging multiple domains, learning about the resources within those domains, linking that knowledge to new situations, and finally building new networks around the innovations that emerge from the process. This article also considers the origins of knowledge brokers as firms committed to this innovation strategy, the structural and cultural supports for the knowledge brokering process, and several obstacles to the process that these firms experience. Finally, I discuss the implications of this model for further research on innovation and learning, and the implications for other organizations seeking to establish their own capabilities for brokering knowledge.     

Interfirm coopetition,trust, and opportunism: a mediated moderation model

Based on the literature on coopetition, interorganizational trust perspective, and recent work studying their interactions, we propose a mediated moderation model, which delineates how coopetition moderates the relationship between collaborations and opportunism and whether interorganizational trust mediates the moderated relationship. The findings indicate that the interaction of collaborations and coopetition positively influences opportunism, and that this effect will be negatively mediated by interorganizational trust. The results highlight that simultaneous use of the coopetition strategy will impact the efforts on opportunism reduction and illustrate the importance of interorganizational trust in the coopetitive situation.

     

动态环境下联盟竞合、治理机制与创新绩效的关系研究

本文从竞合视角审视联盟组合,结合动态关系观探讨有效的联盟治理机制,揭示了联盟组合中竞合关系(横向竞合、纵向竞合)、治理机制(契约治理、关系治理)和创新绩效之间的关系,并考察了动态环境特征(技术波动、竞争强度)的二次调节作用。在不同的竞合关系中,由于合作和竞争的强度不同,契约治理与关系治理机制的作用也存在差异,同时,治理机制与创新绩效之间的关系也受到两种不同环境动态性特征的影响。研究结果显示,在纵向竞合中,运用关系治理比运用契约治理能更好地提升创新绩效,技术波动正向调节契约治理、关系治理与创新绩效间的关系。在横向竞合中,运用契约治理比运用关系治理有效,竞争强度加强了契约治理对创新绩效的影响,即关系治理在波动的环境中更有效,契约治理在竞争的环境中更有效。本文为企业开展研发联盟组合管理提供了新的视角和管理对策。     

In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study

Coopetition (collaboration between competitors) has the potential to provide major benefits or losses to participating firms. Entering a partnership with a competitor is a strategic decision with potential long-term consequences rendering the choice of partner of key importance. Existing research has investigated partner’s strategic attributes, but not how the inter-organizational factors between coopetiting firms affect partner selection and on which layers those effects occur. We use a vignette study for reducing this gap, representing the first experimental study on the field of coopetition research. The results from our study from 874 evaluations of potential coopetition partnerships by key informants from Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein and Switzerland offer insights into how the possible partner’s role, resource alignment and the planned activity affect partner selection. The findings suggest that the partner’s role in the markets—i.e. whether it is a direct or an indirect competitor—is critical in partner selection. The planned activity and resource configuration is also found to influence the evaluation of possible coopetition partners. Overall, the results of this first experimental study in coopetition research provide important implications to both theory and practice.     

International coopetition for innovation: Are the benefits worth the challenges?

International coopetition has rarely been studied in relation to innovation. Further exploration of effects of international coopetition, i.e. the pursuit of simultaneous cooperation and competition, on a firm’s innovation performance is especially important as such a relationship is challenging with a high propensity to fail. This observation formed the point of departure for this study, which aims to increase the understanding of the effects of international coopetition on firm innovativeness and how these effects are conditioned on the magnitude of the organizational adjustments a firm introduces. We use an unbalanced panel of 9839 firms that participated in four waves of the Swedish Community Innovation Survey between 2008 and 2014 as our empirical base. We illustrate that firms that cooperate with competitors internationally are more likely to exhibit higher propensity to introduce radical innovations, yet this effect is conditioned upon the magnitude of organizational adjustments. Overall, our study contributes to the understanding of the implications of international coopetition and what a firm needs to benefit from it.     

Developing new innovation models: Shifts in the innovation landscapes in emerging economies and implications for global R&D management

Over the past two decades, there has been a substantial shift in the global innovation landscape. Multinationals from developed economies are increasingly globalizing their R&D activities and are developing an “open innovation” model to source innovations from outside the firm, including from emerging economies such as those in Asia. In addition, emerging economy firms, which traditionally have played a secondary role in the global innovation landscape, have now begun to catch up in developing their own innovative capabilities. This study explores the implications of this new innovation landscape for CEOs of multinationals and emerging economy firms, as well as for international management scholars and educators. While the multinationals might appropriate rents from their existing capabilities and source new ones in emerging economies, they may be threatened by weak intellectual property rights regimes and unintended knowledge spillovers to local firms, creating potential competitors. Firms in the emerging economies can learn from and catch up with investing multinationals, but to do so they need to develop their own innovative capabilities and move from a process to a product focus and from imitation to innovation.     

The Coexistence of Competition and Cooperation between Networks: Implications from Two Taiwanese Healthcare Networks*

The issue of coopetition, the coexistence of cooperation and competition, has recently come to the fore in the strategic management field. Previous coopetition research has focused on the intra‐organizational level, inter‐organizational level and triad level, but less attention has been paid to coopetition at the network level. The purpose of this paper is to address the coexistence of competition and cooperation between networks, and to depict how networks with different structures interact with each other. Drawing from a detailed case study of two healthcare networks in Taiwan, we demonstrate how they first initiated competition, followed by cooperation and then coopetition. From our analysis of this example of network coopetition, we develop three propositions that address the forces driving competition and cooperation and the different structures that allow competition and cooperation to coexist. We found that two organizations will compete and cooperate simultaneously when each organization has complementary but distinctly different sets of resources and when the field of competition is distinctly separate from the field of cooperation. In addition, two networks will find it easier to balance competition and cooperation when each network has compatible but distinctly different structures. We argue that the simultaneous existence of cooperation and competition is not dependent on closeness to the customer, as previously suggested in the literature, but on the balance between the forces for cooperation and for competition. We suggest from this research that networks can maintain the balance between competition and cooperation when they act using different structures. Finally, we discuss the implications of the value of competition and then coopetition at multiple levels of analysis and the implications for future research from a practical perspective.     

Managing coopetition in diversified firms: Insights from a qualitative case study

Cooperation among divisions is usually thought to explain the performance of diversification strategies. However, such divisions are also in competition. Through the in-depth analysis of an intraindustry diversified firm operating in the global semiconductor industry, this paper identifies the sources of coopetition and the treatment of coopetitive tensions among divisions in the production allocation process. We find a multipoint origin of cooperation within a competitive setting. Then, we extend a previous study that considers uniquely two substitute views: (a) corporate-centric; and (b) division-centric. Additionally, by employing formal organizational mechanisms, we show that corporate headquarters guides divisional interaction to form a circular coopetition process. Thus, it is feasible to consider that intrafirm competition and cooperation phases form in a dynamic loop.     

Financial performance and global start-ups: the impact of knowledge management practices

This paper investigates how knowledge management (KM) practices improve the financial performance of global start-ups (GSs). Using a database of 114 global innovative Italian start-ups, this study is based on the principal component analysis – data envelopment analysis (PCA-DEA) method. In particular, a survey was conducted to investigate KM practices and secondary data was used to evaluate financial performance. This research highlights that the adoption of different knowledge management practices (i.e., acquisition, documentation, creation, transfer and application) has a positive impact on the financial performance of global start-ups. The study contributes to the literature on international entrepreneurship, shedding light on the consequences of KM practices for global start-ups' financial performance, and provides guidelines for business owners, enabling them to understand better how knowledge management can facilitate the achievement of high levels of financial efficiency.     

Coopetition Strategy – When is it Successful? Empirical Evidence on Innovation and Market Performance

Coopetition (collaboration between competing firms) has been viewed as a potentially beneficial but also a risky relationship for a firm. Earlier literature provides inconclusive evidence in terms of the effects of a firm's coopetition strategy on innovation and market performance, suggesting both positive and negative implications. Some of this variation could be attributed to the fact that coopetition is successful only in certain types of business environment. In order to take the research further, this study examines the effect of a coopetition strategy on the firm's innovation and market performance, focusing on the moderating effects of market uncertainty, network externalities and competitive intensity. The results from a cross‐industry survey of 209 Finnish firms provide novel evidence on the conditions under which coopetition is successful and when it is not.     

基于双层网络的第三方支付机构与商业银行竞合演化机理研究

本文以中国第三方支付机构和商业银行为研究对象,借鉴演化博弈论思想和双层网络演化博弈仿真方法,剖析两类企业竞合互动的演化规律以及相关因素对演化稳定策略的影响。研究发现,第三方支付机构与商业银行竞合的演化稳定策略存在不确定性,合作收益的提升、合作成本的降低、违约惩罚的提高以及利益分配的合理性有助于提高两类企业的合作水平,推动两群体向合作主导演化。细化研究发现,两类企业体现出显著的异质性,第三方支付机构对相关因素的变化更为敏感,对利益的要求更低。同时各群体内部收益差距明显,实力较强的大型第三方支付机构和商业银行能够获得较高的合作收益和较多的合作机会,而中小第三方支付机构和商业银行难以从竞合中获得理想收益。     

Innovation in Small,Project‐Based Construction Firms*

Relevant literature is synthesized to provide a holistic picture of our current knowledge of innovation in small, project‐based firms, highlighting significant gaps in the broad areas of ‘focus and outcome’, ‘organizational capabilities’, ‘context’ and ‘process’. Research findings from fieldwork focused on the construction industry are offered to address these gaps. In particular, a consensus model is given of the organizational factors dynamically at play. It is shown that typically the innovations of small, project‐based firms are closely tied to their operational activities and are pushed forward by owners who utilize very scarce resources to make progress in the interstices of normal business. This leads to an emphasis on taking up established technologies through ‘learning on the job’. Growth per se is not an important target. The motivation to act is generally to get past a survival mode of operating and to achieve stability by satisfying clients. These characteristics contrast with large organizations, especially in terms of the role of the owner, the close focus on niche markets and the lack of slack resources to innovate in parallel with normal business. It is hoped that these results will be of interest to other sectors where small, project‐based firms operate.     

How Governance Misalignment and Outsourcing Capability Impact Performance

Notwithstanding the popularity of outsourcing as a business strategy, the performance benefits realized through outsourcing efforts are observed to be mixed in practice. This leads to important unresolved questions regarding why some firms are able to derive substantial value from their outsourcing initiatives while other firms are left disappointed. This study joins an emerging literature integrating transaction cost economics and capabilities‐based perspectives to develop a deeper understanding of the drivers of outsourcing performance. I develop a theoretical model that examines the independent and joint influence of governance misalignment (i.e., deviation from transaction cost's predicted mode of governance) and a firm's outsourcing capability on the performance of outsourced processes. I test the theoretical model using a dataset of 172 outsourced and 156 in‐house processes. The finding that governance misalignment corresponds to inferior process performance supports transaction cost's discriminating alignment hypothesis. Interestingly, I also find that a retained technical expertise (TE) and outsourcing knowledge management routines (OKMR; both contributors to a firm's outsourcing capability) positively influence outsourcing performance both directly and via their relationship with governance misalignment. While a retained technical expertise and outsourcing knowledge management routines each positively influence outsourcing performance, they do so in distinctive ways. These findings have important managerial implications and make a significant theoretical contribution. Specifically, this study demonstrates that the notion of a governance misalignment is firm‐specific, conditional on the governance capabilities of the organization. This insight underscores the value of integrating transaction cost logic with capabilities‐based perspectives.