Cooperative innovation through a talent management pool: A qualitative study on coopetition in healthcare

In recent years, the Dutch healthcare sector has been confronted with increased competition. Not only are financial resources scarce, Dutch hospitals also need to compete with other hospitals in the same geographic area to attract and retain talented employees due to considerable labour shortages. However, four hospitals operating in the same region are cooperating to cope with these shortages by developing a joint Talent Management Pool. ‘Coopetiton’ is a concept used for simultaneous cooperation and competition. In this paper, a case study is performed in order to enhance our understanding of coopetition. Among other things, the findings suggest that perceptions of organizational actors on competition differ and might hinder cooperative innovation with competitors, while perceived shared problems and resource constraints stimulate coopetition. We reflect on the current coopetition literature in light of the research findings, which have implications for future research on this topic.     

Revisiting the cooperation–competition paradox: A configurational approach to short- and long-term coopetition performance in business networks

Cooperation and competition are often viewed as incompatible, antagonistic forces, thus are operationalized as two extremes on a continuum. However, they can coexist and even enable each other, thus may be operationalized as orthogonal constructs. We address this contradictory phenomenon by developing a more granular view of the cooperation–competition paradox. Building on interdisciplinary research, we develop a three-dimensional model of relational space (fairness–opportunism, sharing–control, and engagement–rivalry), providing a novel tool with which to investigate the paradoxical interplay between cooperation and competition through eight operationalizable configurations. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), we test our model by assessing how different configurations of interfirm relationships influence the short- and long-term success of a sample of 217 firms. Our findings show that only two of the eight possible relational configurations are associated with firm success, one in both the long and short term, and the other in the short term only.     

Implementing the right project structure to achieve coopetitive innovation projects

This research focuses on the project structure used by coopetitors to achieve common innovation projects. Scholars have recently identified an original but complex project structure that they call the Coopetitive Project Team (CPT). However, other project structures can also be implemented by coopetitors to achieve innovation. Therefore, we address the following question: for which types of innovation projects is CPT appropriate? We argue that coopetitors need to use CPT for high-risk and high-cost projects when the aim is to develop radical innovation. CPT allows coopetitors not only to develop innovation capabilities through close resource and knowledge sharing but also to manage the risk of opportunism. Conversely, coopetitors should use another project structure, Separated Project Teams (SPTs), for low-cost and low-risk projects when the aim is to develop incremental innovation. The SPT design allows coopetitors both to achieve the goal of the project and to minimize the risk of opportunism. To confirm our assumptions, we studied the project portfolios of Airbus and Thales, two firms in the space satellite industry. Our findings confirm that coopetitors should implement CPTs to handle innovation projects that are costly, risky and highly innovative. CPTs permit the sharing of knowledge and the management of high opportunism risk, both of which are necessary to achieve radical innovation. Conversely, coopetitors rely on SPTs for low-cost projects that require a low degree of knowledge sharing, thus avoiding the risk of opportunism in achieving their incremental innovation objectives.     

How rival partners compete based on cooperation?

Prior studies of coopetition have explained the what, how and why of firms cooperating with competitors. Among these, examining the how question as to the stream of coopetition dynamics is the most challenging theme. Previous research has focused much more on the cooperation side. Less attention has been paid to the competition side to reveal what happens to competition after the competitors have collaborated. This study sheds light on the issue of cooperation-based competition by answering the question: while cooperating with competitors, how do rival partners compete based on cooperation? Linking the competitive dynamics perspective to coopetition, we conducted a single-case study to analyse the competition between two leading competitors in the Taiwanese bicycle industry. We collected the reported issues pertaining to the competition in the European market and supported by in-depth interviews. The analysis leads us to develop three propositions and a conceptual framework for illustrating the cooperation-based competition and addressing how cooperation may influence competition in a coopetition relationship. This study provides new insights into a theoretical issue of cooperation-based competition. The case also provides management implications while taking a coopetition strategy.     

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.     

The embeddedness of social relations in inter-firm competitive structures

Collaboration with direct competitors is a valuable, yet risky, strategy that might pave the way for competitive advantages. Thus far, we have lacked a detailed understanding of how competitive relations between firms shape collaborative relations between their managers, and consequently the structural interdependencies at both levels. The primary objective of this study is to understand the multi-level structure underlying the ambiguous relationship of coopetition, a state of simultaneous collaboration and competition. Hence, we investigate the influence of perceived inter-firm competition on interpersonal knowledge flows among managers within three high-tech clusters by applying multi-level exponential random graph models to network data. Our results reveal that the interpersonal exchange of advice and information depends strongly on the inter-firm competitive structure and that competitive structures shape these interpersonal exchanges in different ways. Thereby, our research demonstrates that managers utilize asymmetries by means of perceived competitive relations to seek work-related advice and information from their competitors and that stronger forms of competition are significant, but not insuperable, obstacles to the exchange of knowledge.     

Coopetition,value co-creation,and knowledge-enhancement in the UK alpaca industry: A multi-level mechanism

Notwithstanding the increasing interest in coopetition, relevant research is still composed of loosely connected themes with little contextual focus. Little attention has been paid to explain coopetition at multiple stages and levels, in various industries, and between micro-firms. This paper addresses these gaps by proposing a multi-level mechanism, unravelling the relationship between coopetition management, value co-creation, knowledge-enhancement, and superior performance achievement in micro-businesses. Using qualitative methods, we look at the non-high tech alpaca industry. Results reveal that the successful coopetition management in various coopetition stages, at an individual, organizational, and industry level, leads to value co-creation, knowledge-enhancement, and to the VRIO resources development, and thus drive positive outcomes for the individuals and organizations engaged and for the industry as a whole. This mechanism is influenced by industrial, market, and institutional factors.     

Neither complements nor substitutes: Examining the case for coalignment of contract-based and relation-based alliance governance mechanisms in coopetition contexts

Although the extant literature recognizes that the contract-based and relation-based alliance governance mechanisms (AGMs) play a significant role in the success of alliances, the nature of their interplay still remains ambiguous. In this study, we move away from the traditional debate between contract- and relation-based AGMs as substitutes versus complements. Instead, we offer the notion of “fit” or the “coalignment” as a more appropriate frame to explain the interplay between contract- and relation-based AGMs in the coopetition context. We conceptualize ‘Coalignment of Alliance Governance Mechanisms’ (CAGM) as a distinct higher-order construct and outline a methodological orientation to estimate the coalignment of the two forms of AGMs. We conduct a longitudinal study using primary data from 320 matched coopetition alliances in high-technology research-intensive sectors in India and find that the CAGM explains better the impact of governance mechanisms on value creation in coopetition alliances.