Umeå University's logo

A partly new train of thought has emerged during the last few years, which claims that national conditions are of importance for company strength in relation to international competitors. National competition has stood out as one of the most important explanatory factors, and is seen as the catalyst or motor in dynamic industrial environments. The demands and pressures that evolve from competition between geographically proximate companies stimulate the innovativeness within the industry. Thus, the question about

why and how dynamics of competition develop and function has not been answered in existing research.

The main purpose of this study is therefore to

analyse the process of competition in industries with a high degree of geographical proximity between competitors, in order to improve the understanding of the character and dynamics of competition.

A general review of literature dealing with competition at industry, strategic group, and organisation level was compiled. The review gave two dimensions by which four types of competition were possible to distinguish,

degree of symmetry between competitores and degree of activity in competition. To obtain an understanding for the character and dynamics of competition, it is not enough to identify different types of competition. The process through which competition is formed over time also needs to be studied. Other theoretical approaches are therefore necessary. First, the companies' competitive actions should be understood from their experience and expectations of competition. Second, the specific competitive moves that are taken by individual companies are of importance for the competition. Third, competition has to be described as a process of interaction over time.

A case-study approach has been used for the gathering of data. Case-studies have been conducted within three industries that differ from each other with regard to competition. Competition in the Frontloader industry has been driven by two companies equal in both size and relative strength. The competitors in the Lining industry are,on the other hand, dissimilar, both in respect to relative strength and to the orientation of their business. The third industry, that of Hoisters, is characterised by the domination by one company.

Two major results have been reached in this study. First the concept

climate of competition has been coined to analyse and describe the character of the four types of competition. The following four climates of competition emerge from the analysis; climate of rivalling competion, of co-existing competition, of evolutionary competition and climate of revolutionary competition. The climates of competition differ with regard to the functional and psychological distance between competitors, the possibility to survey competition, and the actors' acceptance of current rules-of-play and role distribution.

The second result of the study is a greater understanding for the dynamics within competition. By analysing the character of and change in competition over time two partly different, but interwined forces, have been detected. Competition gives rise on the one hand to different kinds of learning processes, and on the other forces competitors to innovative and creative measures.

Adopting the Internet for advanced marketing operations opens up challenging opportunities for firms of all sizes. However, such adoption might destroy investments in present market channels and thus has the characteristics of radical innovation. In this article, we draw on the literature on innovation to investigate what differentiates adopters of advanced Internet-based marketing operations from non-adopters in firms of different sizes. The conceptual model for this study is centred on the set of internal and external factors size, willingness to cannibalize, entrepreneurial drivers, management support, and market pressure. Our analysis is built on survey data from 379 Swedish manufacturing firms. The results of analysis show that composition of factors on which firms base their decision to adopt advanced Internet-based marketing operations varies signifi cantly with fi rm size. A number of implications for further research as well as for managers and educators are discussed.

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.

The growing cultural and creative sector has been argued to be an important catalyst for revitalization and development of other industries, cities, and regions through innovative value creation based on a logic with a focus on cultural and creative values rather than on growth and scalability. We argue that in attempting to realize such positive effects, cultural and creative entrepreneurs (CC entrepreneurs) face challenges, including liabilities of smallness, newness, and uniqueness, and of creating an identity, legitimacy and understanding of their value in interaction with partners. In coping with these challenges, boundary work becomes critical, and this paper explores the boundary work of CC entrepreneurs. Based on our qualitative study we use three narratives to illustrate our analysis of how the entrepreneurs engage in boundary work. We find that CC entrepreneurs set and maintain, as well as span and cross boundaries to overcome challenges of identity and develop their distinctiveness and belonging, and to overcome liabilities through cooperating across boundaries or expanding their scope. We also show that boundary work can be a joint effort by CC entrepreneurs, facilitated by creating boundary spaces, individuals taking on boundary roles, and through using boundary objects. 

De myter som diskuteras i detta kapitel är att antingen konkurrens eller samarbete utgör det bästa receptet för att stödja innovationsprocesser.

En orsak till att myterna fått så stor genomslagskraft är att konkurrens och samarbete sällan diskuteras kopplat till vad somutgör innovativa processer, nämligen förmogan att utforska och exploatera nya idéer. Det är därför viktigt att man avfärdar de båda myterna och istället inser att konkurrens och samarbete pågår samtidigt, så kallad coopetition.

Både konkurrens och samarbete kan stimulera och försvåra innovativa processer om än på olika sätt under olika delar av den innovativa processen. I kapitlet visas med hjälp av några praktiska exempel hur olika kombinationer av konkurrens och samarbete stimulerar förmågan att utforska respektive exploatera nya idéer.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptually develop the understanding of co-opetitiondynamics and to enhance the conceptual clarity of co-opetition by developing a definition based onprevious research efforts.Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper integrates various approaches to theconcept co-opetition into a definition that holds for co-opetitive interactions across multiple levels.Different co-opetitive interactions and the resulting dynamics are discussed by drawing uponcompetition and cooperation theories. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research onco-opetition dynamics.Findings – The paper outlines how different types of co-opetitive interactions result in archetypicalsituations where the dynamics of co-opetition are present as well as where the dynamics of co-opetitionare missing due to a lack of balance between cooperation and competition. It notes four co-opetitiveforces: over-embedding, distancing, confronting, and colluding. These four forces drive developmenttowards situations without dynamics.Originality/value – This paper provides a conceptual understanding of co-opetition dynamics andwill reveal that in order to adequately account for co-opetition dynamics, a definition of co-opetitionmust analytically separate the cooperative and the competitive interaction inherent in co-opetition.

We lack knowledge concerning the importance of entrepreneurial actors in development of dynamic capabilities. Entrepreneurial drives lead the entrepreneur and his/her firm into different strategies to cope with encompassing change and in building different sets of capabilities. A case study of four high-tech firms suggests that entrepreneurial actions determined by entrepreneurial drives (technological, market, business, and development) lead to the creation of new modules and to combinations of external and internal capabilities that increase the balance between contradicting demands. This suggests that a combination of different drives is important, as is the formation of entrepreneurial roles (creators, expanders, and builders).

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework that describe three contending market regimes in converging industries, and to use this framework to study clashes between the different regimes and the implication they have on firms’ competitive strategies and on the interaction among competitors. More specifically, it is the challenges that develop when competitors simultaneously are acting in accordance with a competitive, a cooperative, and a co-opetitive market regime that are elaborated upon.

Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory study of the interaction between firms within the IT and Telecom industry is conducted using a case study approach with in-depth interviews with 30 informants within the industry together with secondary data.

Findings – The paper brings forward clashes between different market regimes in converging industries and six propositions are formulated.  The study furthermore shows how firms respond differently to a demand-driven convergence, some act in accordance with a competitive regime and try to exclude others whereas others act in accordance with the co-opetitive regime and cooperate with competitors to develop new product offers.

This article investigates how coopetition enables Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) to create entrepreneurial opportunities in fast-paced industries. The purpose is to explore the managerial challenges that SMEs face when collaborating with large powerful competitors and examine how they balance the relationship to create and sustain business opportunities through coopetition. Based on three exploratory case studies in the IT and telecom industry, we develop a theoretical model suggesting that SME can manage the liabilities of smallness and newness; and sustain independence in and balance coopetitive relationships with large firms if they develop alliance portfolio managing capabilities. We find that the ability to build legitimacy, to enhance agility and to create role flexibility plays an important role in balancing and navigating among different coopetitive relationships, thereby creating and sustaining opportunities.

While the field of coopetition has grown the multi-level nature of the phenomena have not been systematically addressed. The purpose of this systematic review is to organize extant research by distinguishing between level of coopetition and the effects of coopetition. Through a search of two databases, 99 articles were identified addressing coopetition, or collaboration and competition. The articles were classified by the method used, the level of coopetition addressed and on what level the effects were described. Within the different combinations of level and effect a content analysis was made of the articles. We suggest that additional clarification of the concept is needed to consolidate the field and give direction for future research. 

Traditionally the relationships between competitors in the industrial market have been based on competition. The network approach and literature about strategic alliances have provided new insights into cooperation between firms based on the value chain. The empirical findings from two in-depth studies, the rack and pinion industry and the lining industry, show that a firm can be involved in four different types of horizontal relationships at the same time. Apart from relationships consisting of competition or cooperation, a firm can live in symbiosis by coexisting with other relationships, or being involved in a relationship simultaneously containing elements of both cooperation and competition. Consequently, a successful firm needs to focus on relationship management in order to achieve a portfolio consisting of the four types of relationships to other

horizontal firms.

Existing theory and research on relationships among competitors focuses either on competitive or on cooperative relationships between them, and the one relationship is argued to harm or threaten the other. Little research has considered that two firms can be involved in and benefit from both cooperation and competition simultaneously, and hence that both types of relationships need to be emphasized at the same time. In this article, it is argued that the most complex, but also the most advantageous relationship between competitors, is “coopetition” where two competitors both compete and cooperate with each other. Complexity is due to the fundamentally different and contradictory logics of interaction that competition and cooperation are built on. It is of crucial importance to separate the two different parts of the relationship to manage the complexity and thereby make it possible to benefit from such a relationship. This article uses an explorative case study of two Swedish and one Finnish industries where coopetition is to be found, to develop propositions about how the competitive and cooperative part of the relationship can be divided and managed. It is shown that the two parts can be separated depending on the activities degree of proximity to the customer and on the competitors' access to specific resources. It is also shown that individuals within the firm only can act in accordance with one of the two logics of interaction at a time and hence that either the two parts have to be divided between individuals within the company, or that one part needs to be controlled and regulated by an intermediate actor such as a collective association.

Research on coopetition has been conducted for more than two decades. However, several concepts remain that require elaboration. A study on the literature shows that there is a lack of unified definitions, as various definitions have been employed in previous accomplished research. In this article we suggest that the early definition of coopetition, as a dual relationship between firms that simultaneously cooperate and compete needs to be refined. Our new definition suggests that coopetition is a paradoxical relationship between two or more actors, regardless of whether they are in horizontal or vertical relationships, simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions. We also highlight important contributions to the field, and some shortcomings that point to future challenges for coopetition research. Finally, we put forward five directions for future research: (1) understand the balancing of cooperation and competition, (2) understand the coopetition paradox and engendered tension, (3) apply a multilevel perspective on coopetition (4) understand the dynamics of coopetitive interaction, and (5) understand how coopetition impacts business models and strategy.

Relationships among competitors in the same market have for a long time been regarded as consisting of only competition. By competing, the competitors have been forced to develop their products, although this is not always a demand from the buyers. Moreover, competition is regarded as the main driving force behind better internal efficiency. Lately, the importance of cooperation in order to pool resources together has been suggested as an effective way of enabling competitors to be more effective. Shorter lead times, distribution of costs for developing new products, more efficient production processes, and focusing on core competition are mentioned as some of the reasons competitors should form cooperative relationships that can range from informal long-term relationships between competitors and how they can affect their business.

In this paper we discuss the theoretical rooting of present research on coopetition and point to the need for an integration of theories on competition dynamics, and cooperative interactions in social networks. We argue that the future growth of the coopetitive research field hinges on creatively combining existing theoretical approaches with novel research methods and contexts. In particular, we suggest that incorporating theories on the micro foundations of strategic action can substantially enhance the field. The aim of this paper is both to raise questions regarding the theory and practice of coopetition research and to give examples of new approaches and trends that may contribute to the advancement of the field in the future. We consider our research practice and explore avenues for further research starting from what, where and how we study coopetition, to when and who we study. In general, we call for a stronger focus on the centrality of multiple stakeholders in forming, executing, and developing coopetition, and on research methods that can investigate in depth the multitude of actors, interests, and interactions using a multi-level analysis, including the micro foundations of coopetition.

While research on the phenomenon of coopetition has dramatically increased during the last years, this line of inquiry often embodies a loosely connected body of work with fragmented themes, underdeveloped concepts, and little work explaining coopetition at multiple levels. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review of the field, and based on a final set of 142 contributions, synthesize the disparate research into a coherent whole by developing an overarching and dynamic multilevel model. We first systematize diverse conceptualizations of coopetition with respect to different levels into The Actor and The Activity Schools of Thought. Then we integrate major critical themes into a Driver, Process, Outcomes (DPO) framework, and offer a Blended School of Thought to show how different levels are intertwined and affect each other. Next, we develop a multilevel conceptual model of coopetition by integrating the Blended School into the DPO framework. This model helps future re- search better understand how the phenomena of coopetition at one level of analysis are distinct, yet interlinked, from coopetition at other levels, and in so doing, provides a richer and more complete perspective of the phe- nomenon of coopetition. Finally, we identify promising research avenues and suggest how future research can strengthen this line of inquiry.

This chapter focuses on coopetition (i.e., simultaneous pursuit of cooperation and competition between firms) as a manifestation of paradox at an inter-firm level, and develops a nuanced understanding of the resulting paradoxical tension by bringing its micro-foundations into focus. The authors suggest that unlike the paradox that manifests at the inter-firm level (or organizational level), tension is experienced by individual actors, and comprises ambivalent cognitions, emotions, and their interplay. The authors further suggest that paradoxical tension is most productive when maintained at a moderate level, and for that firms need to develop a multilevel operating capability. The suggested theory provides novel and useful insights to advance the research on paradoxes at inter-firm and organizational levels.

In contrast to the conventional strategic management research, emphasizing either cooperation or competition as a beneficial strategy, the emerging literature on coopetition has advanced our knowledge of how the pursuit of both cooperation and competition could potentially lead to greater benefits. However, the literature offers scarce insights into the multi-level dynamics of coopetition and the role of TMT in addressing paradoxical tensions cascaded across levels, that, if not tackled well, can overturn the benefits associated with coopetition. Using key insights from the paradox literature, this paper develops a conceptual model that suggests how the coopetition paradox unfolds at different levels within the organization, activating performing, organizing, and belonging tensions, that, in turn, affect the dynamics of the interplay between cooperation and competition at the inter-firm level. Specifically, the model contributes by foregrounding TMT’s cross-level bridging role (i.e., uniform navigation within and among relationships at the interorganizational level through efficient orchestration of internal processes at organizational levels)

In this study, we focus on the micro-foundations of coopetition capability and ask: "where does coopetition capability come from?" Drawing upon social psychology and cognitive theories, we seek to offer insights into the micro-foundations of coopetition capability by focusing on the role of top management team (TMT) diversity. We suggest that TMT diversity emerges from two distinct attributes of the team members: surface-level (e.g., age, gender, nationality) and deep-level (e.g., knowledge and experience). We argue that TMT diversity based on surface-level attributes contributes negatively while TMT diversity based on deep-level attributes contributes positively to coopetition capability. We test our hypotheses using a novel dataset that combines primary data and employee level secondary data of a sample of 315 Swedish firms. Results provide broad support for our hypotheses. We discuss the implications of our findings and key limitations of our study.

By viewing coopetition as a paradox, this paper provides a conceptual model for examining the mediating role of managers’ ambidextrous orientation in linking coopetition tensions with firm’s performance. With a focus on two kinds of tensions that managers usually experience in the coopetition relationship (i.e., external tensions) as well as perceive inside the organization (i.e., internal tensions), we conceptualize their materialization from the coopetition paradox and how ambidextrous managers can mitigate their potential destructive effects on performance. This conceptual model is tested on a representative sample of 1,532 firms in Sweden. The results show that coopetition paradox associates with external tensions but weakly relates to internal tensions. A key contribution is that there is no significant direct relation between coopetition tensions and performance but that an ambidextrous orientation of managers provides a strong mediating effect between the two. 

In this study, we apply a paradox perspective on coopetition to investigate the effects of coopetition paradox on managers' experience and perception of coopetitive tensions, and the role of coopetition capability in managing such tensions. We propose a theoretical model to posit that the intensity of coopetition paradox positively associates with managers' experience of external tension, which in turn lead them to perceive internal tension. Further, coopetition capability plays a dual role—moderates the relation between coopetition paradox and external tension, and reduces internal tension. We tested hypotheses on a representative multi-industry sample of 1532 firms in Sweden and the results confirm them. Our study contributes to understanding the critical role of coopetition capability that enables firms to maintain a moderate level of tension regardless of the intensity of coopetition paradox. 

Technology development is often a boundary-spanning activity where insights and discoveries from different organizations or organizational units are merged into new products or new technical solutions. In some cases, projects of this kind are organized within large multinational firms. In other cases, technology development projects are organized within networks through co-operation between independent companies possessing unique resources that can be utilized as parts of the project. In this paper, we discuss and analyse how distances are bridged in technology development projects. We focus on: (1) the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge; and (2) different distances inherent in the development effort. Two different bridging processes are proposed as means to overcome distances: a separating-integrating process; and a linking-formalizing process. It is argued that a development project typically runs through either one of these two processes.

The aim of this paper is to examine industry competition and cooperation in industry clusters, and to explore the role they play in driving innovation among firms. The dependent variable, innovative performance, is measured in terms of both product and process development. A theoretical model is built on the basis of three constructs: industry competition, involving both structural and relational, or ‘climatic’ characteristics; industry cluster; and innovative performance. Seven hypotheses are extracted from the model. A LISREL model based on a stratified sample of all Swedish manufacturing industries is used to test our hypotheses. The empirical findings have important theoretical implications in three areas. First, by introducing relational dimensions of competition—the ‘climate of competition’—we can build a more refined model of the nature of industry competition. Two types of climate are identified, the ‘hot’ and the ‘cold’. Second, it is shown that the structure and climate of competition are both important drivers of innovative behavior. Third, in addition to competition, cooperation within clusters also has a significant impact on innovation.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of satisfaction and switching costs on the development of brand equity in the B2B setting. The study considers the hierarchical effects between brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. Furthermore, the conceptual model examines the direct effect of switching costs on satisfaction. The structural equation modeling was used to analyze 632 responses from the CEOs and CFOs of organizations buying auditing and business consultancy services from one of the Big Four auditing companies. The findings demonstrate the significant impact of satisfaction and switching costs on B2B brand equity.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of satisfaction and switching costs on the development of brand equity in the business-to-business setting. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze 632 responses from the CEOs and CFOs of organizations buying auditing and business consultancy services from one of the Big Four auditing companies. The findings demonstrate the significant impact of satisfaction and switching costs on B2B brand equity. Furthermore, the findings show the positive effect of switching costs on satisfaction. The findings provide a strong foundation for further investigation of links between the key marketing concepts: brand equity, satisfaction, and switching costs.

The main purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of customer-employee rapport and employee role behavior on the development of B2B brand equity. The process of brand equity development is captured in this study through the hierarchical effects between the dimensions of brand equity. The interaction between the customer and the employee is reflected by customer-employee rapport, employee role ambiguity and role overload. The results of the structural equation modeling show the positive effect of customer-employee rapport and the negative effects of role ambiguity and role overload on the development of B2B brand equity.

The study examines whether factors related to customers' perception of employees' behavior in terms of customer perceived role ambiguity, role overload and customer–employee rapport influence the development of brand equity in the professional service context. 632 customers of one of the Big Four auditing companies participated in the study. The results of structural equation modeling show negative effects of role ambiguity and role overload on brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty, which constitute brand equity. The findings indicate a positive effect of customer–employee rapport on the enhancement of B2B brand equity. However, the negative influences of role ambiguity and role overload on customer–employee rapport transfer detrimental indirect effects on brand equity. The study contributes to an understanding of how the real interaction between service providers and customers can influence brand equity in the professional service setting.

The main purpose of the study is to investigate the dynamics of brand equity formation in the business-to-business setting. The study focuses on examining the potential differences in the formation of brand equity between the customers, who have chosen to buy only the core service, versus the customers, who have decided to buy a diverse range of services from their current provider of professional services.

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of buyer-seller interdependencies on the formation of brand equity in the B2B context. The study demonstrates that a higher level of dependency, experienced by the multi-services buyers compared to the uni-service buyers, affects overall brand equity developed towards the seller. By considering the hierarchy of effects between the brand equity dimensions, the study shows that the factors capturing the interdependencies have a significant impact on brand loyalty of the multi- service buyers. The study contributes to branding research by evaluating the impact of buyer- seller dependency on B2B brand equity.

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.

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.

Although coopetition is seen as beneficial for innovation it also involves risks so that benefits of coopeting for innovation need to be balanced with these risks. Therefore the aim of this paper is to increase the understanding of the tradeoffs made by firms in their choice of partners for new product development. We explore how firms evaluate key attributes in partner selection and highlight the trade-off they are willing to make in terms of risks of coopetition using a conjoint analysis. Results show that the level of competition is the most important attribute in managers’ decision when selecting a partner. When analyzing the trade-off, the reduction of costs, decreased time-to-market and increased learning opportunities are the attributes that make firms most willing to work with a competitor as a partner. This paper contributes with new insights about the critical decisions made in the process of partner selection for innovation.

With a focus on inter-firm relationships involving the simultaneous pursuit of competition and cooperation, we develop a conceptual framework that explicates key paradoxical conditions, paradoxical tension, and performance implications of tension in such relationships. We propose felt tension as the actual manifestation of the paradox and offer insights on critical capabilities necessary to understand and manage the paradox. Our paper extends the paradox literature in the inter-organizational context and provides a set of concepts and propositions designed to stimulate systematic empirical research on the competition–cooperation paradox.