Unpacking the management of Oligo-coopetition strategies in the absence of a moderating third party

Roy, Frédéric Le; Bez, Sea Matilda; Gast, Johanna

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.08.004

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if coopetition has been mainly associated with dyadic relationship (Pellegrin-Boucher et al , 2013, Bengtsson et al , 2016), and relationships between firms in a “value net” including suppliers, clients, competitors and complementors (Nalebuff and Brandenburger, 1996, Bouncken and Fredrich, 2012), more recently new forms have been identified, such as international coopetition (Le Roy et al , 2021). In this vein, when considering the internationalisation strategy, new intermediaries are required to support the strategy of coopetition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we adopt the flexible pattern matching approach, we build our analysis on a tentative analytical framework specified a priori to provide guidance and focus (Section 2). This approach allows a theory-driven research paradigm (Le Roy et al , 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if the benefits of coopetition could be very high, coopetition might not always lead to high performances for the participants (Crick and Crick, 2021). This happens, for example, when it is difficult to protect the knowledge which is shared across coopetitors (Le Roy et al , 2021; Gast et al , 2019; Fernandez et al , 2018).…”

Section: A Theoretical Model Of Coopetitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Competing or coopeting? Italian banking rivalry in Egypt, 1924–1940

Berbenni

Cantù

Colombo

2022

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the key drivers of coopetition by adopting a managerial and economic framework. A case of coopetition failure is investigated by means of a historical example focused on the Egyptian adventure of the Italian banks in the first decades of the XX century. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopt a qualitative case study and a flexible pattern matching approach to develop theoretical ideas. Because the flexible pattern matching approach was adopted, the authors build the analysis on a tentative analytical framework specified a priori to provide guidance and focus. This approach allows a theory-driven research paradigm. The historical case study is mainly grounded on original sources drawn from some major banking and institutional archives. Findings While several scholars emphasised the relevance of external drivers, the literature has paid less attention to how relational and internal drivers combine. The historical case suggests that key mechanisms supporting the success of coopetition concern planning of common goals, conflicts management, alignment and formalisation of governance. In this vein, internal and relational dimensions seem to be more relevant than environment-context dimension. In addition, the historical example shows that an intra- and inter-firm alignment is required to pursue the implementation of a coopetitive strategy. This suggests the relevance of a holistic approach to investigate coopetition. Further evidence confirms the role of governance mechanisms for the success of coopetition. Originality/value The main contribution of this study is the re-consideration of the drivers of coopetition. In particular, the role of coopetition drivers has been investigated using a historical event: the Italian multinational banking in Egypt in the interwar years.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Theoretical Model Of Coopetitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Competing or coopeting? Italian banking rivalry in Egypt, 1924–1940

Berbenni

Cantù

Colombo

2022

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extant coopetition research has focused mainly on deliberately established dyadic relationships between competitors (Le Roy and Czakon, 2016). More recently, scholars have turned their attention to multipartner coopetition (Rouyre and Fernandez, 2019; Le Roy et al, 2021), which often emerges in response to current technological, customer or regulatory pressures (Czakon, 2018). This emerging nature of partnerships, which even when deliberately planned by some partners appear as an unintended opportunity for the others, is the central argument of this study.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

To join or not to join? Insights from coopetitive RD&I projects

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In particular, effectively managing coopetitive tensions requires seeking balance between cooperation and competition among project members (Gast et al, 2019; Le Roy & Fernandez, 2015); in contrast, taking actions that increase or decrease either dimension may result in an imbalance between cooperation and competition, leading to the mismanagement of coopetitive tensions (Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton, 2018). If mismanaged, coopetitive tensions may disrupt the project (e.g., Fernandez et al, 2018; Kylänen & Rusko, 2011), for instance, by prompting knowledge guarding rather than sharing and opportunism rather than mutual assistance (e.g., Le Roy et al, 2021; Luo, 2004). Therefore, PP projects require governance mechanisms that help manage coopetition by balancing cooperation and competition in all fronts—that is, public‐private and industrial coopetition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐evolution of governance mechanisms and coopetition in public‐private projects

Rouyre,

Fernandez,

Estrada

2023

J of Ops Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One important question in public‐private (PP) projects is how to manage coopetition—simultaneous cooperation and competition among project members. Prior studies on the governance of PP projects showed the importance of governance mechanisms to deal with major events such as technical or organizational disruptions but paid limited attention to the management of coopetition. At the same time, research on the management of coopetition mostly focused on industrial coopetition, whereas PP projects also entail public‐private coopetition. Seeking to better understand how governance mechanisms may help manage coopetition in PP projects, we conducted an in‐depth study of Galileo—a large PP project aimed at delivering Europe's own satellite‐based navigation system. The findings show how three core aspects of project governance—(i) mechanisms (joint vs. separate use of contractual and relational mechanisms), (ii) form (lead organization vs. shared governance), and (iii) goals (to promote cooperation and/or prevent competition)—jointly explained the emergence and (mis)management of knowledge‐ and value‐related coopetitive tensions. In turn, these tensions prompted a series of adaptations in the governance of the project. Our study contributes to a co‐evolutionary understanding of the governance of PP projects and offers implications for practitioners seeking to (re)design PP project governance.

show abstract

Unpacking the management of Oligo-coopetition strategies in the absence of a moderating third party

Cited by 15 publications

References 56 publications

Competing or coopeting? Italian banking rivalry in Egypt, 1924–1940

Competing or coopeting? Italian banking rivalry in Egypt, 1924–1940

To join or not to join? Insights from coopetitive RD&I projects

Co‐evolution of governance mechanisms and coopetition in public‐private projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About