Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe

Abstract Prior research highlighted the prevalence of coopetition as a strategy for innovation in high-tech industries for several reasons but the link between forms of coopetition and innovation is still understudied. In order to fill this gap in the literature, this study attempts to answer the following question: which form of coopetition favors which type of innovation? The results of an embedded case study approach of five Celtic-Plus projects (European Eureka Program) in the wireless telecommunication sector show that two forms of coopetition exist: multiple and dyadic. While multiple coopetition is successfully pursued for radical innovation, dyadic coopetition is more suitable for incremental innovation. Different innovation objectives lead to different levels of value creation/appropriation tensions between coopetitors. In order for competitors to pursue radical or incremental innovation successfully, different levels of social capital related to different choices of partners are needed. The role of social capital levels as a moderating factor between value creation/appropriation tensions and innovation type is discussed in detail. The study proposes a conceptual model that links coopetition strategy motives to the types of coopetition and their results in terms of radical or incremental innovation. Finally, a framework that helps firms to balance between multiple/dyadic–vertical/horizontal collaboration according to the levels of value creation/appropriation tensions and social capital is proposed.

[1]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[2]  Devi R. Gnyawali,et al.  Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation , 2011 .

[3]  B MilesMatthew,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis , 2009, Approaches and Processes of Social Science Research.

[4]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen,et al.  Tug of war in innovation - coopetitive service development , 2009, Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag..

[6]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  J. Morse.  Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed): Mathew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Price: $65.00 hardback, $32.00 paperback. 238 pp , 1996 .

[8]  R. Weber.  Basic Content Analysis , 1986 .

[9]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[10]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[11]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[12]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[13]  F. Vermeulen.  On Rigor and Relevance: Fostering Dialectic Progress in Management Research , 2005 .

[14]  Devi R. Gnyawali,et al.  Co‐opetition and Technological Innovation in Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises: A Multilevel Conceptual Model , 2009 .

[15]  Rachelle C. Sampson,et al.  The Scope and Governance of International R&D Alliances , 2003 .

[16]  R. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed. , 2009 .

[17]  P. Ritala,et al.  Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability , 2013 .

[18]  Mosad Zineldin,et al.  Co‐opetition: the organisation of the future , 2004 .

[19]  P. Ritala,et al.  What's in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-related coopetition , 2009 .

[20]  T. Peng,et al.  Is Cooperation with Competitors a Good Idea? An Example in Practice , 2012 .

[21]  Francesco Schiavone,et al.  An experience‐based view of co‐opetition in R&D networks , 2011 .

[22]  Harbir Singh,et al.  The Performance Implications of Timing of Entry and Involvement in Multi-Partner Alliances , 2007 .

[23]  P. Ring,et al.  The role of fairness in alliance formation , 2010 .

[24]  B. Tether.  Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis , 2002 .

[25]  Dimaggio,et al.  Structures of capital : the social organization of the economy , 1990 .

[26]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[27]  Calin Gurau,et al.  Coopetitive strategies in the ICT sector: typology and stability , 2013, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[28]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  Helge Godoe.  Innovation regimes, R&D and radical innovations in telecommunications , 2000 .

[30]  M. Bengtsson,et al.  Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks , 1999 .

[31]  Harbir Singh,et al.  Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation , 2000 .

[32]  Giovanni Battista Dagnino,et al.  Untangling the Rise of Coopetition: The Intrusion of Competition in a Cooperative Game Structure , 2007 .

[33]  Wayne E. Baker,et al.  Networking Smart: How to Build Relationships for Personal and Organizational Success , 1994 .

[34]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[36]  Jinyu He.  Co-Opetition: Promises and Challenges , 2008 .

[37]  P. Bourdieu.  Forms of Capital , 2002 .

[38]  V. Narayanan,et al.  Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed , 2007 .

[39]  M. Bengtsson,et al.  ”Coopetition” in Business Networks—to Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously , 2000 .

[40]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[41]  Pamela Baxter,et al.  Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers , 2008 .

[42]  M. Gibbert,et al.  What passes as a rigorous case study , 2008 .

[43]  K. Weick.  Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination , 1989 .

[44]  E. Mingione,et al.  Embeddedness, Path Dependency and Social Institutions , 2007 .

[45]  Max Chen.  Competitor analysis and interfirm riva-lry: toward a theoretical integration , 1996 .

[46]  Naoki Wakabayashi.  Relational trust and embeddedness in interorganizational networks : an analysis of quality control manager networks in Japanese buyer-supplier relations , 2003 .

[47]  Charles H. Fine.  Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control In The Age Of Temporary Advantage , 1998 .