Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore interactional and procedural practices in managing tensions of coopetition (simultaneous collaboration and competition between firms).

Through an in-depth literature review of prior research within coopetition and strategy-as-practice fields, and by using two illustrative empirical examples, the authors develop a framework for preventing and managing coopetitive tensions through combinations of procedural and interactional practices.

The authors identify tensions related to strategizing, task and resource allocation, as well as knowledge sharing. Furthermore, they demonstrate potential ways of how these tensions can be prevented, resolved and managed.

The findings show that the analysis of tensions in coopetition would benefit from a holistic, multilevel approach that recognizes practices that are interactional (i.e. face-to-face interactions) as well as procedural (i.e. organizational routines). Coopetitive tensions and their resolution are related to the use or neglect of both types of practices. Furthermore, interactional and procedural practices are mutually interdependent and can complement each other in tension management in various ways.

The findings of this study shed light on the roles and activities of actual practitioners involved in coopetition, and shows how their work and practices in-use contribute to coopetition, related tensions and their resolution.

By adopting the strategy-as-practice approach, this study generates valuable insights into the practices and tensions in coopetition, as well as illuminates the roles of the practitioners involved in managing coopetition relationships.

The purpose of this study is to increase understanding about vertical coopetition from the perspective of interrelated conflict episodes on multiple levels.

The empirical part is based on a qualitative single case study of a coopetitive buyer-supplier relationship in the manufacturing sector.

Conflicts in vertical coopetition evolve from being merely functional and task-related to becoming dysfunctional and relationship-related, as the level of competition increases. The nature of conflict episodes influences the development of vertical coopetition, and therefore, the interrelatedness of conflict episodes is important to acknowledge.

Although a conflict is considered functional within a company, it may still be dysfunctional as far as the coopetitive relationship with the buyer or seller is concerned. Competition may trigger conflicts related to protecting own technology and knowledge, which may lead to termination of the cooperation, therefore coopetition should be managed in a way that balance sharing and protecting important knowledge to get advantages of coopetition.

The findings enhance prior research on vertical coopetition by offering new perspectives on causes of conflicts, their management, outcomes and types. The value of taking a multilevel approach lies in the ability to show how conflicts occur and influence other conflicts through the interrelatedness of conflict elements on different levels.

Addressing fundamental sustainability challenges has now become strategic for multi-national corporations. However, such challenges by their very nature are complex and require resources that are frequently beyond those that are traditionally accepted as relevant and crucial to a firm’s core business operations. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how firms identify and integrate diverse groups of actors using social intelligence to build an ecology of resources to tackle these complex challenges.

The empirical part is based on qualitative single case study research of a packaging company and its waste management program.

Organizing for sustainability requires business activities to be conceptualized as a continuous process of project building, involving actors in diverse settings and responsibilities divided thematically and spatially forming nets within a network to solve problems, collectively. There is a fundamental analytical problem of integrating a diversity of value spheres, and society has a set of rational methods for planning and action where decisions are made to privilege one aspect to the exclusion of others. Artificial separation of activities that are interdependent and failure to allow these activities to evolve through interactions in time and space could threaten sustainability.

This is a single case study within a certain context, therefore ways for orchestrating resource ecologies need further investigation.

For managers, it is very important to recognize and appreciate the interconnectedness of resource ecologies but also that interactions resulting in joint actions can often have different rewards and benefits for the diverse range of actors implicated in such networks. This kind of social intelligence offers managers options to experiment with transitional pathways that match the objectives of diverse network actors and provide unique resource combinations for building competitive advantage. There is only so much that is under the control of managers or even firms, which means both must embrace uncertainty and the phenomenon of emergence.

From a societal perspective, the findings of the study show how the open and transparent activities for the sustainability of one firm spread through different layers of the society through connecting, sharing and developing resources. Therefore, it is important for societies to enable and support the open sharing of resources for sustainability. Investments in large programs for transitions to sustainability tend to spread from a focal company into various projects for sustainability involving several layers of actors within society. This ensures that awareness, behaviors and attitudes related with sustainability become rooted in society and give rise to valuable innovations.

This study illustrates how resources are created and shaped through nets during transitions toward sustainability using social intelligence.

The reality of today’s business world is based both on cooperation and competition, or coopetition. There is, however, a lot of diversity within the field of coopetition research, and the research within this field is moreover only at an emerging stage. The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of coopetition by recognizing actor and operational levels of coopetition. The nature of the paper is conceptual. The findings of the paper show that most of the previous research about coopetition has been on an interfirm level – that is, related to cooperation between companies. Further, it is possible to argue that the studies have mostly focused on cooperation between competitors. In the majority of the existing studies, coopetition is treated as a strategy, and not as something natural. The theoretical contribution of this paper is that it gives scholars within the area of coopetition a broad theoretical background, which is useful for future research. From a managerial perspective, the findings demonstrate the multifaceted nature of coopetition.

The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of the process of ending inter‐organizational cooperation by identifying the underlying reasons and stages of the ending.

The empirical context of this study is a joint company amongst a group of competitors. The findings of this paper are based on a longitudinal case study within the construction industry in the region of Ostrobothnia in Finland. Interviews with managing directors were carried out in 1998, 2000 and 2004.

The reasons for ending a co‐operational relationship can be found on three levels: external, relational, and organizational. When taking into consideration the underlying reasons as well as time, the process consists of the following stages: pre‐start, harmony, consideration, disengagement, communication and post‐ending.

There are rare opportunities for generalizations, resulting in a risk of a fairly case specific study. Further research on this subject should focus on whether and under which circumstances do similar reasons and stages of the process exist.

The process of ending inter‐organizational cooperation may start at the very beginning of the cooperation. Although a stage of harmony exists the ending process may already have begun. There is a need to invest more resources in order to preserve cooperation.

The empirical context of cooperation between competitors is both unique and important within the research of business relationship ending. A longitudinal perspective was used and the stages of the ending process are based on identified reasons for the ending. Thereby a holistic view of the ending of business relationships is presented.

The purpose of the paper is to develop intellectual capital theory to include competitive aspects that influence value creation of the network.

The empirical part of the paper is based on a qualitative case study of a network of collaborating competitors within the natural products industry in Finland. A total of 29 interviews are conducted involving 11 informants. The empirical material is examined through Verna Allee's value network analysis.

Business relationships include both collaborative and competitive dimensions. By adding a competitive dimension to Allee's value network, a more exhaustive picture of the network emerges. Hence, the relationships not only consist of collaborative tangible and intangible flows between the actors of the network, but also of competitive flows that per definition may only be intangible.

The paper is based on a single case study. The paper includes collaborating competitors, but opens up interesting avenues for further research as competitive elements surely are present also in other types of business relationships.

Knowledge received from partners is not always trustworthy. Still, managers gain more from getting access to knowledge they do not know if it can be trusted, than to be excluded from the collaboration.

This paper brings forward the notion of competitive elements in collaborative relationships. IC research has tended to mostly focus on the positive aspects of the knowledge economy, but has much to gain by realising that there are also negative aspects that affect the creation and distribution of value in a network.

The purpose of this study is to increase understanding about the causes of conflict in intercompetitor cooperation.

The empirical part is based on two case studies within two different industries in Finland: the transportation industry and the natural products industry. Interviews with managing directors were carried out in 2003‐2006.

The findings of the study show that causes of conflict in intercompetitor cooperation can be related organisationally, relationally or externally. Organisational causes of conflict in intercompetitor cooperation can be either operational or normative, while relational causes can be strategic or normative. On an external level there are several actors that may influence conflicts in intercompetitor cooperation: suppliers, salesmen, customers and political actors.

The limitations of the study derive from the scarce possibilities for generalisations and the risk of a fairly case‐specific study. Further research should focus on external network actors and their impact on conflict in business‐to‐business relationships. Another avenue for further study would be to investigate the extent to which the findings from this study can be related to vertical business relationships with minimum levels of competition.

Cooperating competitors usually have a history, which is mainly based on competition. This history appears to be hard to forget since there is a tendency for competitors to act individualistically by focusing on what is best for their own company instead of the industry as a whole.

The study focuses on two research areas, neither of which has been adequately researched in the existing literature about interorganisational relationships: conflict and intercompetitor cooperation.