Abstract:R&D projects between multiple partners have been examined by various disciplines at the macro-, micro- and meso-level. Even though scholars have acknowledged the possibility that both competitive and non-competitive partners participate in such projects, we still lack a holistic perspective on their complex interactions. This paper builds on open innovation and coopetition literature to explore the influence of research partners and clusters on the relationships between competing companies in different pro… Show more
“…Similarly as identified importance of third‐party reputation and legitimacy for joining coopetitive networks in the tourism sector (Czakon and Czernek, 2016), our findings suggest that in mature industries, trust in research partners plays a crucial role in the decision to collaborate with direct competitors in RD&I projects. Therefore, we extend the insights of the limited research on the influence of third parties – such as public institutions (Freel, 2003), incubators (Blanka and Traunmüller, 2020), research partners or business clusters (Smiljic, 2020) – on the establishment of coopetitive collaborations and propose the following:P4a: Trust in research partners mitigates perceived market risks and positively influences the willingness of direct competitors in mature industries to engage in exploration RD&I projects.P4b: The perceived risk that missing an opportunity for project participation will give direct competitors a better market position positively influences the willingness of direct competitors in mature industries to engage in exploration RD&I projects.As criteria for evaluating opportunistic risks, the scope of the project and previous collaborative experience with the same partners and with similar projects appear to be shared by exploration and exploitation projects. Studies warned that some firms are willing to engage in projects with direct competitors only when the scope of the project falls outside the firm's core competencies (Dorn et al, 2016; Tidström and Rajala, 2016; Kraus et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Similarly as identified importance of third-party reputation and legitimacy for joining coopetitive networks in the tourism sector (Czakon and Czernek, 2016), our findings suggest that in mature industries, trust in research partners plays a crucial role in the decision to collaborate with direct competitors in RD&I projects. Therefore, we extend the insights of the limited research on the influence of third parties -such as public institutions (Freel, 2003), incubators (Blanka and Traunmüller, 2020), research partners or business clusters (Smiljic, 2020) -on the establishment of coopetitive collaborations and propose the following: P4a: Trust in research partners mitigates perceived market risks and positively influences the willingness of direct competitors in mature industries to engage in exploration RD&I projects.…”
Multipartner research, development and innovation (RD&I) projects are increasingly used to achieve complex innovation goals and keep pace with today's technological imperatives. The involvement of both competing and noncompeting partners increases the complexity of the relationships and poses a challenge to the outcomes of such projects. Therefore, the right choice of partners is particularly important in this context. Although previous research has mainly examined how focal firms deliberately select collaborative partners, this study demonstrates how non-focal firms evaluate invitations to participate in RD&I projects with multiple partners and direct competitors. Going beyond the coopetitive dyad, we qualitatively examine six multipartner RD&I projects in mature industries involving competitors and noncompetitors. The findings suggest that the evaluation process differs between exploration and exploitation projects. We identify critical factors that guide direct competitors' process of deciding whether to participate in both types of projects, and we provide new insights into the attractiveness of coopetitive RD&I collaborations for firms in mature industries. The study's propositions advance theory and can be tested in future empirical studies. This study also provides valuable guidance for practitioners considering embarking on a coopetitive journey.
“…Similarly as identified importance of third‐party reputation and legitimacy for joining coopetitive networks in the tourism sector (Czakon and Czernek, 2016), our findings suggest that in mature industries, trust in research partners plays a crucial role in the decision to collaborate with direct competitors in RD&I projects. Therefore, we extend the insights of the limited research on the influence of third parties – such as public institutions (Freel, 2003), incubators (Blanka and Traunmüller, 2020), research partners or business clusters (Smiljic, 2020) – on the establishment of coopetitive collaborations and propose the following:P4a: Trust in research partners mitigates perceived market risks and positively influences the willingness of direct competitors in mature industries to engage in exploration RD&I projects.P4b: The perceived risk that missing an opportunity for project participation will give direct competitors a better market position positively influences the willingness of direct competitors in mature industries to engage in exploration RD&I projects.As criteria for evaluating opportunistic risks, the scope of the project and previous collaborative experience with the same partners and with similar projects appear to be shared by exploration and exploitation projects. Studies warned that some firms are willing to engage in projects with direct competitors only when the scope of the project falls outside the firm's core competencies (Dorn et al, 2016; Tidström and Rajala, 2016; Kraus et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Similarly as identified importance of third-party reputation and legitimacy for joining coopetitive networks in the tourism sector (Czakon and Czernek, 2016), our findings suggest that in mature industries, trust in research partners plays a crucial role in the decision to collaborate with direct competitors in RD&I projects. Therefore, we extend the insights of the limited research on the influence of third parties -such as public institutions (Freel, 2003), incubators (Blanka and Traunmüller, 2020), research partners or business clusters (Smiljic, 2020) -on the establishment of coopetitive collaborations and propose the following: P4a: Trust in research partners mitigates perceived market risks and positively influences the willingness of direct competitors in mature industries to engage in exploration RD&I projects.…”
Multipartner research, development and innovation (RD&I) projects are increasingly used to achieve complex innovation goals and keep pace with today's technological imperatives. The involvement of both competing and noncompeting partners increases the complexity of the relationships and poses a challenge to the outcomes of such projects. Therefore, the right choice of partners is particularly important in this context. Although previous research has mainly examined how focal firms deliberately select collaborative partners, this study demonstrates how non-focal firms evaluate invitations to participate in RD&I projects with multiple partners and direct competitors. Going beyond the coopetitive dyad, we qualitatively examine six multipartner RD&I projects in mature industries involving competitors and noncompetitors. The findings suggest that the evaluation process differs between exploration and exploitation projects. We identify critical factors that guide direct competitors' process of deciding whether to participate in both types of projects, and we provide new insights into the attractiveness of coopetitive RD&I collaborations for firms in mature industries. The study's propositions advance theory and can be tested in future empirical studies. This study also provides valuable guidance for practitioners considering embarking on a coopetitive journey.
“…This key role of a third party is confirmed by Planko, Chappin, Cramer, and Hekkert (2019), Bez and Chesbrough (2020) and Smiljic (2020). The inclusion of a noncompeting neutral third party seems to be an effective strategy to manage coopetitive projects involving several coopetitors.…”
Section: Management Of Oligo-coopetitionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…As such, we add to the discussion on the management of coopetitive projects on different stages of the value chain (e.g., Chiambaretto & Dumez, 2016), including vertical (e.g., Lacoste, 2012;Lechner et al, 2016;Soppe et al, 2014) and horizontal (Choi et al, 2010;Hannachi & (Fernandez, Le Roy & Chiambaretto, 2018;Bez & Chesbrough, 2020). Most prior research, however, focused either on the management of dyadic coopetition (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000;Dagnino & Padula, 2002;Le Roy & Fernandez, 2015) or oligo-coopetition with a moderating third party (Planko, Chappin, Cramer, and Hekkert, 2019, Bez and Chesbrough, 2020, Smiljic, 2020, while the presented results provide insights into the management and organizational designs of oligo-coopetition strategies in the absence of a moderating third party. Second, our results contribute to prior knowledge on organizational design and management of coopetition.…”
Section: Theoretical Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Only a few studies are dedicated to this question highlighting that the successful management of this oligo-coopetition is a challenging task given the increased complexity (Enberg, 2012;Rouyre & Fernandez, 2019;Jakobsen, 2020). To deal with this complex coopetitive relationship including multiple partners, coopetitors tend to include a noncompeting neutral third party into their coopetition relationship (Rouyre and Fernandez, 2019;Planko, Chappin, Cramer, & Hekkert, 2019;Smiljic, 2020). However, there is one problem as such an external third party does not always exist in oligo-coopetition (Enberg, 2012).…”
This study aimed to integrate the dimensions and elements of intra-cluster coopetition, identify the emergence of a complementary theoretical perspective to cluster theory and create an integrative research agenda to support the rethinking cluster approach based on coopetition. It is an integrative Systematic Literature Review that generates insights to move the topic forward. Results showed coopetition as context, process, or outcome. The research focus was grouped into six dimensions of intra-cluster coopetition: Strategic Adjustment, Perceived Benefits, Mediated Coopetition, Social Interaction, Coopetitive Orientation, and Temporality of Coopetition. Four hundred eighty-six elements used by scholars created a second-order coding to represent the variables of coopetition in clusters. From the integrative literature overview, a theoretical framework emerges with four dimensions: Conditional factors, Policies, Market commonality, and Formal supporting structure. These dimensions act as drivers, markets, or intensifiers of the intra-cluster coopetition strategy. At the same time, the dimensions suffer the influence of external, internal, and ecosystem contexts. Our literature review builds theory to advance cluster coopetition research and complement the Porterian perspective. The framework suggests the main elements to manage clusters under the coopetition strategy. These findings rethink cluster theory and deliver the business co-evolution perspective, considering the cluster as a business ecosystem with an open system based on coopetition. Findings offer an inductive-deductive pattern system to further research that represents the evolutionary trend of the topic itself.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
