Purpose Increasing environmental uncertainty, more demanding customers, rapid technological growth and rising capital costs have all forced firms to evolve from collaborating with buyers and suppliers to collaborating with their competitors and that is called coopetition. The purpose of this paper is to better understand the antecedents and outcomes associated with coopetition. Design/methodology/approach Building from the existing literature and three theoretical foundations, resource-based theory, resource dependence theory and game theory, the authors develop a model showing the antecedents and outcomes of coopetition and associated propositions of coopetition. Using a semi-structured interview process of 21 industry executives, the authors offer empirical support for the proposed coopetition model and propositions. Findings Firms are increasingly dependent on the knowledge and expertise in external organizations to innovate, solve problems and improve supply chain performance. This research suggests that there is a value for firms to consider coopetition as a part of their inter-firm strategies. Research limitations/implications The semi-structured interview process used in this research provided a wealth of information and executive experiences in coopetition. The interviews, however, only provide a single perspective of collaborative engagements with competitors. Multiple perspectives of each project would add value to this research. Originality/value Collaboration among buyers and suppliers have been well researched; however, there has not been as much research on coopetition. This research provides a new area for future research for academics and offers suggestions for managers to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their coopetition projects.

The vision of the Physical Internet (PI) involves both sharing logistics resources and information exchange within an open network. The implementation of PI is seen as a promising contribution toward sustainable logistics. This paper investigates motives for and success factors in collaborating in a PI network. We apply an interpretive case‐based research approach involving four shippers and three logistics service providers (LSPs) that operate in a PI network. Motives are defined as the reasons that encourage an organization to enter the PI network. Success factors are conditions required for organizations to continue collaborating in a PI network. This is the first PI study conducted in a multi‐industry context. The findings demonstrate the central and neutral orchestration of resources (i.e., physical, digital/intangible, and relational resources) as a substantial and multi‐faceted issue in PI and continuous PI collaboration. A well‐accepted theory (Resource‐Based View) and its most recent extension (Resource Orchestration Theory—ROT) frame and guide our research. ROT informs the deployment of physical, digital/intangible, and relational resources by a neutral orchestrator in a PI network. The knowledge of motives and success factors allows the development of future user‐oriented PI services that are likely to be accepted by shippers and LSPs.

No abstract

A case research approach is employed for investigating and comparing managerial perceptions of the three types of innovation (service, product, and process innovations) within the context of cross-functional network of a European steel manufacturing firm. The insights result in the development of a typology of innovation projects based on origin, context, scope, benefits, and degree of complexity. The findings embedded in Resource Based View and Service Dominant Logic, reveal divergent aspects of the three types of innovation such as disparate reasons for undertaking each type of innovation and distinct internal and external success factors, as well as convergent aspects of the innovation types such as similar challenges. This research explores the three types of innovation in a single firm in a single study and provides a middle ground for the two extant schools of thought (one viewing product, service, and process innovations as entirely different processes and the other viewing all three as essentially same processes).