umu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Harryson Näsholm, MalinORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-0842-6941
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 38) Show all publications
Chiambaretto, P., Fernandez, A.-S. & Näsholm, M. (2019). Learning from experience in coopetition: The impact of being able to learn from experience on the selection of a competitor as a partner for innovation. In: : . Paper presented at EURAM 2019, "Exploring the Future of Management", 26–28 June 2019, ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal. , Article ID 284.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Learning from experience in coopetition: The impact of being able to learn from experience on the selection of a competitor as a partner for innovation
2019 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

More and more firms collaborate with competitors to innovate. While coopetition provides significant benefits, it is also a risky strategy, especially when the partners are close competitors. Recent research has shown that managing coopetition and developing a coopetition capability contributes to making coopetition a successful strategy. Companies with coopetition capability can benefit from the positive energy of coopetition while mitigating its potential harmful consequences, and alliance experience is an important part of such a capability. However, the key to experience is to be able to learn from it. This study focuses on how firms learning from experience affect the way they evaluate the benefits and risks of coopetition for innovation and aims to increase the knowledge of firms’ reasoning when selecting a competitor as a new partner for innovation. More precisely, we hypothesize that experienced (those with greater accumulated learning from experience) and inexperienced firms will value benefits and risk offered by potential partners differently. To test our hypotheses, we relied on an experimental research design based on a CBC analysis. Our results reveal that experienced firms are less reluctant to work with a close competitor than inexperienced firms. Companies who learn from experience will value a faster time-to-market and cost reduction provided by the partner more than inexperienced firms. In contrast, inexperienced firms look for coopetitors that can provide radical innovation opportunities, strong risk-sharing and learning opportunities more than experienced firms.

Keywords
coopetition, capability, learning from experience, conjoint analysis
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-161964 (URN)
Conference
EURAM 2019, "Exploring the Future of Management", 26–28 June 2019, ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
Available from: 2019-08-08 Created: 2019-08-08 Last updated: 2019-08-09Bibliographically approved
Chiambaretto, P., Bengtsson, M., Fernandez, A.-S. & Harryson Näsholm, M. (2019). Small and large firms’ trade-off between benefits and risks when choosing a coopetitor for innovation. Long range planning
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Small and large firms’ trade-off between benefits and risks when choosing a coopetitor for innovation
2019 (English)In: Long range planning, ISSN 0024-6301, E-ISSN 1873-1872Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

This research investigates the extent to which small and large firms differ when assessing the benefits and risks provided by competitors as partners in innovation. Scholars have shown that coopetition can provide both significant benefits and risks for participating firms. The risks associated with firm competition and the trade-off firms make between the risks and benefits that can be obtained through coopetition must be considered when choosing a partnering firm. In addition, we argue that the firm size could affect the evaluation of benefits and the willingness to take risks such that small and large firms differ in their decision making. Therefore, we address the following questions: First, when choosing a coopetitor with which to innovate, to what extent do small and large firms differ in their evaluation of the benefits and risks associated to coopetition? Second, how does this evaluation influence firms’ willingness to coopete? We draw on research on coopetition to hypothesize that small and large firms differ in their evaluation of the six most important benefits of coopetition. To test our hypotheses, we rely on an experimental research design based on a choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis applied to a sample of innovative Swedish firms. Our results confirm that small and large firms value the benefits and risks associated with coopetitors differently. We show that small firms are less reluctant to coopete than large firms, especially if coopetition allows them to reduce their costs and learn from their coopetitor. In contrast, we show that large firms agree to coopete if coopetition enables them to reduce their time-to-market.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019
Keywords
Coopetition, Innovation, Benefits and risks, Conjoint analysis, Small and large firms, Trade-off
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-157342 (URN)10.1016/j.lrp.2019.03.002 (DOI)
Available from: 2019-03-14 Created: 2019-03-14 Last updated: 2019-03-20
Kostis, A., Bengtsson, M. & Harryson Näsholm, M. (2019). The role of trust and distrust to manage interpartner uncertainty in the robotics and automation ecosystem. In: : . Paper presented at 35th EGOS Colloquium, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, July 4–6, 2019..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The role of trust and distrust to manage interpartner uncertainty in the robotics and automation ecosystem
2019 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Firms holding complementary knowledge and expertise increasingly engage in ecosystems to co-create and jointly deliver tailored-made solutions to industrial customers. Interdependencies inherent in ecosystems make partner alignment a unique challenge related to divergence in partners’ expectations about structure and roles. Such divergence in expectations gives rise to uncertainty in the interactions among the interdependent actors. Yet the level of interpartner uncertainty is heightened in ecosystems characterized by frequent coopetitive interactions and temporal alignment of a set of actors in multiple projects. To acknowledge this, we introduce the concept floating ecosystem. In floating ecosystems, besides uncertainty about how to align activities and actors within one project, there is also interpartner uncertainty about how partners will behave in other projects and relationships. Thus, the question about how to manage and navigate within these dynamic and complex ecosystems to manage the multifaceted nature of interpartner uncertainty is of critical importance. In light of uncertainty and interdependence, trust has been suggested as a unique organizing principle. Drawing on the idea that trust and distrust are distinct phenomena, we also argue that distrust is a distinct organizing principle that has been neglected. We conduct a case study of the Swedish robotics and automation ecosystem and explore the nature of interpartner uncertainty in this ecosystem and the mechanisms through which trust and distrust empower firms to deal with different facets of uncertainty. Our findings establish that trust and distrust work as complementary organizing principles, which operate based on distinct orienting and enabling mechanisms empowering firms to maintain fruitful interactions despite the presence of increased interpartner uncertainty.

National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-161966 (URN)
Conference
35th EGOS Colloquium, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, July 4–6, 2019.
Available from: 2019-08-08 Created: 2019-08-08 Last updated: 2019-09-06
Chiambaretto, P., Fernandez, A.-S., Harryson Näsholm, M. & Bengtsson, M. (2018). A Conjoint Experiment for Partner Selection in Coopetition. In: : . Paper presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, Illinois, USA, August 10-14, 2018..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A Conjoint Experiment for Partner Selection in Coopetition
2018 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

We analyze partner selection decisions in coopetition for innovation. We study how much risk (related to competition) small and large firms are willing to accept to realize the potential benefits of cooperating with a competitor. We use a choice-based conjoint analysis to examine the importance of and trade-off between seven attributes associated with competitors as partners. We show that the level of competition is the most important attribute for small and large firms. SMEs are willing to partner with a competitor if that partnership can reduce costs and the time-to-market, while large firms place more value on the learning opportunities.

Keywords
Coopetition, partner selection, innovation, trade-off, conjoint analysis
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-150898 (URN)
Conference
78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, Illinois, USA, August 10-14, 2018.
Available from: 2018-08-17 Created: 2018-08-17 Last updated: 2019-08-08
Chiambaretto, P., Fernandez, A.-S., Harryson Näsholm, M. & Bengtsson, M. (2018). Assessing Small and Large Firms' Willingness to Cooperate with Competitors for Innovation. In: : . Paper presented at 38th SMS Annual Conference.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Assessing Small and Large Firms' Willingness to Cooperate with Competitors for Innovation
2018 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Coopetition provide both benefits and risks for firms developing joint innovation. But these benefits and risksdiffer for small and large firms. It thus seems essential to understand how small and large firms make a trade-offbetween benefits and risks when choosing a competitor to innovate with. We conduct an experimental researchdesign based on a choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) applied to a sample of innovative Swedish firms. Ourresults confirm that small and large firms value the benefits and risks associated with coopetitors differently. Smallfirms are less reluctant to create alliances with competitors than large firms, especially if it allows them to reducetheir costs and learn from their competitor. Large firms are ready to coopete to reduce their time-to-market andtheir costs.

National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-152122 (URN)
Conference
38th SMS Annual Conference
Available from: 2018-09-27 Created: 2018-09-27 Last updated: 2019-08-08
Kostis, A. & Harryson Näsholm, M. (2018). Balancing Trust and Distrust in Strategic Alliances. In: T.K. Das (Ed.), Managing Trust in Strategic Alliances: (pp. 103-127). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Balancing Trust and Distrust in Strategic Alliances
2018 (English)In: Managing Trust in Strategic Alliances / [ed] T.K. Das, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2018, p. 103-127Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Strategic alliances are unstable, and answers have been sought to why they fail and how to successfully manage them. Inherent tension between contradictory forces, such as simultaneous cooperation and competition, can be a source of instability, yet can be an important part of what makes the alliance beneficial. To cope with tensions and risks trust has been argued as a way to reduce uncertainty, but too much trust can pose a risk in itself. While trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect in managing strategic alliances, less attention has been paid to the importance of distrust and the dynamics of how they interrelate. We argue that trust and distrust are distinct phenomena, each with distinct benefits and potential drawbacks. This chapter aims to advance the understanding of the potential synergies of trust and distrust in strategic alliances and to explain the reasons why pursuing balance between trust and distrust is desirable. We suggest that by pursuing a balance of trust and distrust, a firm can experience the benefits of what we call watchful blindness, which describes a practice of a firm accommodating and deriving the dual benefits of trust and distrust. Thereby uncertainty can be reduced as the ability to foresee future developments is strengthened, which facilitates alignment of the firms’ frames of reference.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2018
Series
Research in strategic alliances
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-155288 (URN)9781641135306 (ISBN)
Available from: 2019-01-11 Created: 2019-01-11 Last updated: 2019-08-08
Näsholm, M. H., Bengtsson, M. & Johansson, M. (2018). Coopetition for SMEs (1ed.). In: Anne-Sophie Fernandez, Paul Chiambaretto, Frédéric Le Roy, and Wojciech Czakon (Ed.), The Routledge companion to coopetition strategies: (pp. 390-397). Abingdon: Routledge
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Coopetition for SMEs
2018 (English)In: The Routledge companion to coopetition strategies / [ed] Anne-Sophie Fernandez, Paul Chiambaretto, Frédéric Le Roy, and Wojciech Czakon, Abingdon: Routledge, 2018, 1, p. 390-397Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Coopeting with other firms can be a necessary, but risky, strategy for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This chapter discusses specificities of small firms that make coopetition important for their growth and success, but also make them particularly vulnerable. Relationships with larger firms are especially challenging due to power asymmetry, and SMEs need to consider their entire portfolio of alliances to manage them. We explore capabilities needed by SMEs to cope with the challenges and define dimensions of alliance management and portfolio management capabilities. We also provide directions for further research.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Abingdon: Routledge, 2018 Edition: 1
Series
Routledge companions in business, management and accounting
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-152123 (URN)9781138736894 (ISBN)9781315185644 (ISBN)
Note

I publikationen felaktigt: "First published 2019".

Available from: 2018-09-27 Created: 2018-09-27 Last updated: 2019-01-11Bibliographically approved
Vanyushyn, V., Bengtsson, M., Harryson Näsholm, M. & Boter, H. (2018). International coopetition for innovation: Are the benefits worth the challenges?. Paper presented at 7th Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy (GIKA) Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, June 28–30, 2017. Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 535-557
Open this publication in new window or tab >>International coopetition for innovation: Are the benefits worth the challenges?
2018 (English)In: Review of Managerial Science, ISSN 1863-6683, E-ISSN 1863-6691, Vol. 12, no 2, p. 535-557Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

International coopetition has rarely been studied in relation to innovation. Further exploration of effects of international coopetition, i.e. the pursuit of simultaneous cooperation and competition, on a firm’s innovation performance is especially important as such a relationship is challenging with a high propensity to fail. This observation formed the point of departure for this study, which aims to increase the understanding of the effects of international coopetition on firm innovativeness and how these effects are conditioned on the magnitude of the organizational adjustments a firm introduces. We use an unbalanced panel of 9,839 firms that participated in four waves of the Swedish Community Innovation Survey between 2008 and 2014 as our empirical base. We illustrate that firms that cooperate with competitors internationally are more likely to exhibit higher propensity to introduce radical innovations, yet this effect is conditioned upon the magnitude of organizational adjustments. Overall, our study contributes to the understanding of the implications of international coopetition and what a firm needs to benefit from it.

Keywords
innovation, coopetition, international coopetition, radical innovation, incremental innovation, organizational innovation
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-140402 (URN)10.1007/s11846-017-0272-x (DOI)000425552800008 ()
Conference
7th Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy (GIKA) Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, June 28–30, 2017
Available from: 2017-10-10 Created: 2017-10-10 Last updated: 2018-06-09Bibliographically approved
Kostis, A. & Harryson Näsholm, M. (2018). Trust (and distrust) in coopetition: A review and directions for further research. In: : . Paper presented at 18th EURAM Conference, Reykjavík, Iceland, June 20-23, 2018.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Trust (and distrust) in coopetition: A review and directions for further research
2018 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

While trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect of interorganizational relationships, less attention has been paid to the importance of trust in coopetitive relationships. Research on trust has started to acknowledge that more trust may not always be better, and that trust and distrust are separate and distinct phenomena. While researchers on coopetition have mentioned trust, the potential role of distrust is even less acknowledged, although it may be particularly relevant due to the risks involved.  The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyze how trust (and distrust) has been treated in coopetition. We outline the contributions made, and the limitations thereof, and thereby derive a well-grounded research agenda for research in coopetition focusing on trust and distrust. We argue that drawing on insights on the management of trust and distrust can contribute to our understanding of how to manage coopetition through balancing the levels of both trust and distrust.

Keywords
trust, distrust, coopetition, systematic review
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-150897 (URN)
Conference
18th EURAM Conference, Reykjavík, Iceland, June 20-23, 2018
Available from: 2018-08-17 Created: 2018-08-17 Last updated: 2019-08-08
Kostis, A., Bengtsson, M. & Harryson Näsholm, M. (2018). Uncertainty and interorganizational trust and distrust: Developing watchful blindness. In: : . Paper presented at 24th Nordic Workshop on Interorganizational Research, Vasa, Finland, April 25-27, 2018.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Uncertainty and interorganizational trust and distrust: Developing watchful blindness
2018 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Interfirm relationships involve uncertainty and risks, and scholars argue that trust is important to successfully manage them. Despite extensive attention to trust, relatively little is known about how distrust, as distinct from trust, affects firm’s ability to manage uncertainty in interfirm relationships. In this paper, we drew on a case study of the Swedish robotics and automation industry and explore the role of trust and distrust in relationships with elements of both cooperation and competitioncoopetition. In line with the stream of research that views trust and distrust as distinct, yet interrelated phenomena, we illustrate that they consist of distinct beliefs based upon perceptions of the other party, distinct behavioral manifestations, and each have their distinct positive and negative outcomes. We extend the research on trust and distrust as well as on coopetition by exploring the role of trust and distrust in coping with uncertainties while simultaneously realizing the benefits of coopetitive interfirm relationships. We suggest that by pursuing a balance of trust and distrust, a firm can experience the benefits of what we call the practice of watchful blindness. Watchful blindness enables firms to embrace uncertainty related to coopetition as it enhances foresightfulness and facilitates forbearance.

Keywords
trust, distrust, coopetition, watchful blindness
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Business Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-150895 (URN)
Conference
24th Nordic Workshop on Interorganizational Research, Vasa, Finland, April 25-27, 2018
Available from: 2018-08-17 Created: 2018-08-17 Last updated: 2019-08-08
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-0842-6941

Search in DiVA

Show all publications