Study on the Coopetition Between Members of Alliance

李健,金占明

2008-01-01

Abstract:The paper starts with the alliance nature of combining cooperation and competition simultaneously and analyzes the intensity of competition and cooperation between alliance members, then constructs a two-dimension model of intensity of coopetition on the basis of previous research. A series of intensity indicators of coopetition is also developed in the paper.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Coopetition in Omnichannel Operations

Lin Liu,Zhenyang Shi,Yi Yang,Quan Yuan,Ziying Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4461608

2023-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Omnichannel strategies may be a creative solution to soften the competition between e-tailers and brick-and-mortar (B&M) retailers. This paper studies the coopetition partnership in omnichannel operations between an e-tailer and multiple B&M retailers under the buy-online-ship-from-store (BOFS) strategy. In this cross-channel partnership, the e-tailer's orders can be fulfilled by B&M retailers with their store inventory, which improves consumers' experiences of last-mile delivery, and retailers earn additional profits through a revenue sharing scheme. We attempt to investigate when the e-tailer and B&M retailers have the incentives to form such a coopetition partnership and when all stakeholders in the market benefit from the BOFS strategy. Our results show that under the coopetition partnership, the profits of the e-tailer and retailers both have an inverted-U shaped relationship with the number of retailers in the market. When there are a few (many) retailers, the entrance of a new retailer may benefit (hurt) both the e-tailer and retailers due to the convenience effect (competition effect) of the coopetition partnership. This creates divergences in firms' willingness to jointly implement the BOFS strategy. We then show that the e-tailer and retailers both want to form the partnership when consumers' hassle cost is low, the market size is large, and the number of retailers is not too large. In addition, all stakeholders, including consumers, the e-tailer, and retailers, may benefit from the coopetition omnichannel partnership with the BOFS strategy (i.e., an “all-win” situation).
A Coopetition Index for Coalitions in Simple Games

Michele Aleandri,Marco Dall'Aglio

2024-07-01

Abstract:In monotone simple games, larger coalitions typically wield more power, but do all players align their efforts effectively? Consider a voting scenario where a coalition forms, but needs more voters to pass a bill. The cohesion of the new group of voters hinges on whether all the new members can proficiently collaborate with the existing players to ensure the bill's passage or if subgroups form that pursue an independent alternative, thus generating antagonism among the new voters. This research introduces the coopetition index, ranging from -1 to 1, to measure agents' preferences for cooperation (near 1) or competition (near -1) with the remaining players. We also introduce the Banzhaf and Shapley-Owen coopetition indices, addressing limitations of previous indices. By applying our index to the apex game and symmetric majority games, we observe that cooperation and competition frequently balance each other out, leading to null values for the Shapley-Owen and Banzhaf coopetition indices. To distinguish balanced scenarios from those involving powerless coalitions, we define a decisiveness index that measures the extent of coalition involvement in negotiations.

Computer Science and Game Theory
The Impact of Agglomeration on Corporation Co-opetition and Performance

王丽丽,吕巍,周颖,郭冰

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-5429.2009.06.019

2009-01-01

Abstract:This paper discusses about the relationship of industry agglomeration and co-opetition and corporation preference.We find that industry agglomeration has the positive relationship with co-opetition among companies,but industry agglomeration dose not relate to the high corporation performance.Meanwhile,co-opetition between center corporation with buyers has positive correlation with central corporation's performance.
The Alliance Partner Selection, Coopetition and Alliance Performance

LI Jian,JIN Zhanming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0241.2007.11.032

2007-01-01

Abstract:Since 1980s,strategic alliances have encountered the high rate of failure during the development process.According to the past research,the rate is up to 50-70%.Yet the determinants of strategic alliance performance have not been explored systematically in the literature.This article submits that the incorrect partner selection,improper state of cooper-competition,and the lacking of coherent measure of alliance performance lead to the failure.The partner analysis is composed of the partner's attribute(resource,market,strategic goals and culture) and the match between partners in these fields.These factors do affect the cooper-competition between them that forms the overall state of alliance.Resource based theory and Cooper-competition theory has been used in the analysis.By integrating the match of alliance partners,the cooper-competition between them,and the performance,the article develops a theoretical framework of determinants of alliance performance concentrating on alliance partner analysis.Through the analysis and research,the findings aim to indicate its key implications for future research and managerial practice.
CEOs Versus Members’ Evaluation of Cooperative Performance: Evidence from China

Xiao Peng,Qiao Liang,Wendong Deng,George Hendrikse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.01.006

2020-01-01

Abstract:Cooperatives are special because the members not only own the cooperative, but also patronize it. CEO's decision has an impact on the overall members' interests. Understanding how CEOs differ from members regarding their evaluations on cooperative performance and what causes the differences, is valuable for CEOs to best serve the members. This paper evaluates the difference between CEO and member evaluation regarding their cooperatives, based on a set of first-hand data containing Chinese agricultural cooperatives (240 CEOs and 543 members). Cooperative performance is measured by three indicators: member profitability, social influence in the local community, and overall performance. The results show that members have higher scores than CEOs regarding member profitability and overall performance, while CEOs have a higher evaluation regarding social influence.
ELEMENTS OF COOPETITION STRATEGY

Rodrigo Oliveira-Ribeiro,Adriana Fumi Chim-Miki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59306/reen.v15e2202260-90

2023-04-05

Revista Eletrônica de Estratégia & Negócios

Abstract:The research examines 129 coopetition models through a qualitative-quantitative study performed using the IRAMUTEQ software to provide the dimensions and variables with more representativeness in the coopetition strategy literature. We used three techniques: Lexical analysis, Descending Hierarchical Classification, and Similarity Analysis. The results showed one macro dimension and two subdimensions divided into six classes. The elements hierarchy was the Creation of coopetitive value, Coopetitive orientation, Strategic adjustment, Coopetitive alliances as determinants, Perceived benefits, and Organizational profile. Similarity analysis results validated both the hybrid nature of coopetition and applications of the construct in market environments and related to cooperative knowledge sharing.
The Share Law of "Comparative Benefit" :Study on the Determination Mechanism of Economic Competitiveness

Hou Jingchuan,Qian Wenrong,Huang Zuhui

2007-01-01

Abstract:The essence of economic competitiveness of an agent is how much it can share from the "Comparative Benefit", which represents the net added gain resulted from the division and trade between it and its partners according to their comparative advantage, in economic activities. So, competitiveness includes two kinds of capacities: one is the cooperative competitiveness between the agent and its partners (namely, economic coopetitiveness), the other is the non-cooperative competitiveness between the player and its craftmen (namely, economic dispetitiveness). With no consideration of the existence of craft competitors, the competitiveness of the agent related to its partner (i.e. coopetitiveness here) is constantly 1:1 according to their gross level, and just determined by the productivities of itself and its partner in terms of their average level shared by per unit of factor inputs. If the player and its partner all have craft competitors, the competitiveness of any of them is mainly related to the cooperation degree of all the craft competitors in the industry, and, certainly, the productivities of all players. But, as for the dispetitiveness of it with its craft brothers, the productivities of them are still the most important determinants.
A Research Review of the Co-opetition Relationship in Intra-Teams

Chuan-feng HUANG,Zheng-tang ZHANG,Ming-zhi DING

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13902/j.cnki.syyj.2015.01.019

2015-01-01

Abstract:Nearly 20 years, co-opetition relationship has become a research focus of organizational behavior field and strategic management field.Its study objects are gradually extending from the co-opetition relationship of inter-organi-zations down to the co-opetition relationship of intra-organizations at the micro-level, for example, inter-depart-ments, inter-teams, and even among members of within teams.The paper reviews the new micro-trends in co-opeti-tion relationship thoroughly, including its connotation, sources, measurement, co-opetition interaction, and its influ-ences on the organizational evolution and performance, aiming to put forward the research significances and future re-search directions in co-opetition relationship research within organizations.
Co-opetition under Endogenous Bargaining Power

Qiankai Qing,Ying-Ju Chen,Tianhu Deng,Leon Yang Chu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3184111

2018-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Motivated by partial vertical integration practices, this paper investigates how a monopoly allocates a key input between the monopoly and his alliance(s) with complementary partner(s) for the delivery of final product or service. The firms' bargaining powers are endogenously impacted by the monopoly's key input allocation and the monopoly and partner(s) have inherently different cost-efficiencies in supplying complementary input. We show that the endogenous bargaining power delivers a fundamental trade-off between a partner's bargaining power and her cost advantage in the monopoly's input allocation decisions. The monopoly may strategically allocate partial key input internally for his own product/service delivery even when the monopoly's and the alliance(s)' products/services are perfect substitutes and the monopoly has a cost disadvantage. In a single partner setting, the firms' equilibrium input allocations are independent of their complementary input costs. Surprisingly, in a two-partner setting, the monopoly may allocate more key input internally for his own delivery of the final product or service as he becomes less cost-efficient; and symmetric allocation for cost-asymmetric partners and asymmetric allocation for cost-symmetric partners may exist. Our main insights extend to settings with alternative timelines, a general channel profit function, alternative bargaining power functions, and alternative outside options. Our study provides a strategic perspective for the coexistence of both cooperative and competing relationships between the monopoly and the partner(s).
Alliance coopetition and breakthrough innovation: the contributory roles of resources integration and knowledge ambiguity

Lisha Huo,Yunfei Shao,Yi Jin,Weijia Kong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2064271

2022-04-25

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Abstract:Based on coopetition literature, we deconstruct alliance coopetition to horizontal coopetition and vertical coopetition, so as to pursue deeper insight into the impacts of different types of alliance coopetition on breakthrough innovation in the context of the firm's knowledge resource endowment. Drawing on the data extracted from 222 Chinese firms, we theorise and demonstrate that there is a positive relationship between alliance coopetition and breakthrough innovation and the incentive of alliance coopetition on breakthrough innovation performance is contingent on the resource integration ability of firms. In addition, we find the knowledge ambiguity positively moderates the direct effect of horizontal coopetition on firms' resource integration, but negatively moderates the effect of vertical coopetition on firms' resource integration. Our findings help to clarify the controversial relation between coopetition and innovation studies.

management
Interfirm coopetition, interfirm knowledge creation, and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition

Ting Xu,Jianjun Yang,Feng Zhang,Wenyu Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.10.003

IF: 8.89

2021-11-01

Industrial Marketing Management

Abstract:This paper investigates whether and how interfirm coopetition—the combination of cooperation and competition—affects collaborative innovation performance in competitive environments. We address this issue by introducing interfirm knowledge creation as a mediating mechanism based on knowledge creation theory and by examining the moderating effects of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition. The hypotheses are tested using survey data from a sample of 170 Chinese high-tech firms. The results show that interfirm knowledge creation mediates the impact of interfirm coopetition on collaborative innovation performance. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the positive relationship between interfirm coopetition and interfirm knowledge creation is stronger under higher levels of environmental competitiveness but weaker under higher levels of dysfunctional competition. The positive relationship between interfirm knowledge creation and collaborative innovation performance is more evident under higher levels of environmental competitiveness. These findings enrich the interfirm coopetition literature, contribute to knowledge creation theory by extending it to the interfirm context, and provide a better understanding and useful advice for enterprise managers and government officials.

management,business
Partners or rivals? An experimental study of a two-stage tournament

Hong Chao,Chun-Yu Ho,Shaoqing Huang,Xiangdong Qin,Jiajia Cong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.11.023

IF: 2

2019-01-01

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

Abstract:•Develop a model of two-stage tournament and use a lab experiment to test predictions.•2nd-stage appropriation behavior endangers 1st-stage cooperation between alliance partners.•Informal agreement can mitigate this hold-up problem if partners interact repeatedly.
Open Coopetition: when Multiple Players and Rivals Team Up

Steffen Roth,Loet Leydesdorff,Jari Kaivo-Oja,Augusto Sales

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-11-2018-0192

2019-01-01

Abstract:Purpose This paper aims to extend the existing views of coopetition into the broader context of open coopetition. Design/methodology/approach The authors build on the literature about open innovation cooperation between competitors in the open-source software industry, which we generalize to show that open coopetition between competitors and third parties can be observed in other industries and institutional settings. Findings The authors outline a research program on the management challenges of open coopetition-related and argue that open coopetition can not only be observed between business rivals but also between partners from university, industry, government and further institutional backgrounds. Originality/value The authors introduce to so-far neglected roots of the emerging research program on open coopetition and extend the prevailing business focus of open coopetition research to also systematically include open coopetition between partners from business and other spheres of society.
Competing while cooperating with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition.

Florian Landkammer,Kai Sassenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000232

2016-12-01

Abstract:Numerous studies comparing the effects of competition and cooperation demonstrated that competition is detrimental on the social level. However, instead of purely competing, many social contexts require competing while cooperating with the same social target. The current work examined the consequences of such "co-opetition" situations between individuals. Because having to compete and to cooperate with the same social target constitutes conflicting demands, co-opetition should lead to more flexibility, such as (a) less rigid transfer effects of competitive behavior and (b) less rigidity/more flexibility in general. Supporting these predictions, Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that co-opetition did not elicit competitive behavior in a subsequent task (here: enhanced deceiving of uninvolved others). Study 2 showed that adding conflicting demands (independent of social interdependence) to competition likewise elicits less competitive transfer than competition without such conflicting demands. Beyond that, co-opetition reduced rigid response tendencies during a classification task in Studies 3a and 3b and enhanced flexibility during brainstorming in Study 4, compared with other forms of interdependence. Together, these results suggest that co-opetition leads to more flexible behavior when individuals have to reconcile conflicting demands. Implications for research on social priming, interdependence and competition in everyday life are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
Cross-Functional “Coopetition”: The Simultaneous Role of Cooperation and Competition within Firms

Xueming Luo,Rebecca J. Slotegraaf,Xing Pan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.2.067

IF: 15.36

2006-04-01

Journal of Marketing

Abstract:Extant marketing literature tends to view cross-functional relationships as primarily cooperative or competitive in nature, but not both. In contrast, this research focuses on cross-functional “coopetition” (i.e., the joint occurrence of cooperation and competition across functional areas within a firm). Using responses from midlevel managers and top executives, the authors find that cross-functional coopetition enhances a firm's customer and financial performance. The authors further show that this influence is mediated by market learning, indicating that performance returns to cross-functional coopetition occurs through an underlying learning mechanism.

business
A Delicate Balance for Innovation: Competition and Collaboration in R&D Consortia

Dong Chen,Li Dai,Donghong Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2018.49

IF: 3.776

2019-01-01

Management and Organization Review

Abstract:ABSTRACTThis study examines how competitive and cooperative relationships within R&D consortia influence member firms’ innovation output. We propose a U-shaped relationship between the presence of market competitors for a member firm and the firm's joint R&D output with other consortium members, and examine how the relationship is mediated by interactions with other members at the firm level and moderated by collaborative efforts at the consortium level. Using a unique sample of 320 firms from 52 R&D consortia in China, we find support for our predictions. This multi-level study extends our understanding of competition and cooperation in multi-party networks and provides insights for creating a balance between the two forces that is conducive to innovation.
The interplay of competitive and cooperative behavior and differential benefits in alliances

Birgul Arslan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2731

IF: 8.3

2017-12-26

Strategic Management Journal

Abstract:Research Summary : Building on game theory and the transaction costs paradigm, this paper systematically examines the interplay between competitive and cooperative behavior and its effect on differential benefits in alliances. Cooperative behavior leads to joint value creation that yields common benefits, while competitive behavior is linked with value appropriation resulting in private benefits. Differential benefits arise when partners extract private benefits. Yet, private benefit extraction depends on the associated reduction in the common benefit potential of the alliance. This paper demonstrates that differential benefits decrease as partners refrain from private benefit extraction when the common benefit potential is high and common benefits are equally distributed. Differential benefits increase when a partner holds dominant operational control under high levels of task interdependence. Managerial Summary : While alliances create synergy potential unavailable to individual firms, they may also lead to differential benefits to the partners. Since differential benefits may hurt a partner both within and outside the scope of the alliance, it is important to understand how they arise. A key source of differential benefits is private benefit extraction through the misappropriation of partner resources. Overall, private benefit extraction depends on the associated reduction in the common benefit potential of the alliance. The findings suggest that partners may refrain from private benefit extraction when the common benefit potential is high and when the expected common benefits are equally distributed among partners. In contrast, private benefits increase when one partner holds dominant operational control under high levels of task interdependence.

management,business
The Life Cycle Research of Industrial Cluster Based on the Coopetition

LI Jian,JIN Zhan-ming,CHEN Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-5097.2009.01.012

2009-01-01

Abstract:Through the relationship between competition and cooperation of enterprises in the industrial clusters,the paper analyzed the clusters' life cycle.The coopetition is the motive force of the clusters' development and practically meaningful.The analysis,which is about the levels of competition and cooperation,contribute to a better understanding of the motives of clusters' development and the features of different periods of their life cycle;accordingly to instruct the development of industrial clusters and prompt the evolution of the clusters.
Do software firms collaborate or compete? A model of coopetition in community-initiated OSS projects

Anh Nguyen-Duc,Daniela S. Cruzes,Snarby Terje,Pekka Abrahamsson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.06489

2018-08-16

Computers and Society

Abstract:[Background] An increasing number of commercial firms are participating in Open Source Software (OSS) projects to reduce their development cost and increase technical innovativeness. When collaborating with other firms whose sought values are conflicts of interests, firms may behave uncooperatively leading to harmful impacts on the common goal. [Aim] This study explores how software firms both collaborate and compete in OSS projects. [Method] We adopted a mixed research method on three OSS projects. [Result] We found that commercial firms participating in community-initiated OSS projects collaborate in various ways across the organizational boundaries. While most of firms contribute little, a small number of firms that are very active and account for large proportions of contributions. We proposed a conceptual model to explain for coopetition among software firms in OSS projects. The model shows two aspects of coopetition can be managed at the same time based on firm gatekeepers. [Conclusion] Firms need to operationalize their coopetition strategies to maximize value gained from participating in OSS projects.
A COOPERATIVE GAME WITH ENVY

Jiahua Zhang,Shu-Cherng Fang,Yifan Xu,Ziteng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2017031

2017-01-01

Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization

Abstract:This paper proposes an envy-incorporated cooperative game model and investigates the envy effects on players' coalition-forming and payoff-allocating decisions. A player's utility depends on her/his own payoff and the envy toward other players, inside and outside the same coalition, with higher payoffs. Envy core is de fined to characterize stable coalition structures and payoff allocations of this new game. Conditions for the envy core to be nonempty are provided. The relative significance of in-coalition envy and out-coalition envy is shown to be a key factor to the form of the envy core. Application to a simple game shows that envy may significantly change players' decisions.

Study on the Coopetition Between Members of Alliance

Coopetition in Omnichannel Operations

A Coopetition Index for Coalitions in Simple Games

The Impact of Agglomeration on Corporation Co-opetition and Performance

The Alliance Partner Selection, Coopetition and Alliance Performance

CEOs Versus Members’ Evaluation of Cooperative Performance: Evidence from China

ELEMENTS OF COOPETITION STRATEGY

The Share Law of "Comparative Benefit" :Study on the Determination Mechanism of Economic Competitiveness

A Research Review of the Co-opetition Relationship in Intra-Teams

Co-opetition under Endogenous Bargaining Power

Alliance coopetition and breakthrough innovation: the contributory roles of resources integration and knowledge ambiguity

Interfirm coopetition, interfirm knowledge creation, and collaborative innovation performance: The moderating roles of environmental competitiveness and dysfunctional competition

Partners or rivals? An experimental study of a two-stage tournament

Open Coopetition: when Multiple Players and Rivals Team Up

Competing while cooperating with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition.

Cross-Functional “Coopetition”: The Simultaneous Role of Cooperation and Competition within Firms

A Delicate Balance for Innovation: Competition and Collaboration in R&D Consortia

The interplay of competitive and cooperative behavior and differential benefits in alliances

The Life Cycle Research of Industrial Cluster Based on the Coopetition

Do software firms collaborate or compete? A model of coopetition in community-initiated OSS projects

A COOPERATIVE GAME WITH ENVY