Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coopetition (collaboration between competitors) has the potential to provide major benefits or losses to participating firms. Entering a partnership with a competitor is a strategic decision with potential long-term consequences rendering the choice of partner of key importance. Existing research has investigated partner’s strategic attributes, but not how the inter-organizational factors between coopetiting firms affect partner selection and on which layers those effects occur. We use a vignette study for reducing this gap, representing the first experimental study on the field of coopetition research. The results from our study from 874 evaluations of potential coopetition partnerships by key informants from Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein and Switzerland offer insights into how the possible partner’s role, resource alignment and the planned activity affect partner selection. The findings suggest that the partner’s role in the markets—i.e. whether it is a direct or an indirect competitor—is critical in partner selection. The planned activity and resource configuration is also found to influence the evaluation of possible coopetition partners. Overall, the results of this first experimental study in coopetition research provide important implications to both theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis H, Bradley KJ (2014) Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organ Res Methods 17(4):351–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Akdoğan AA, Doğan NÖ, Cingöz A (2015) Coopetition as a business Strategy: determining the effective partner selection criteria using Fuzzy AHP. Int Rev Manag Bus Res 4(1):137

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander CS, Becker HJ (1978) The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opin Q 42(1):93–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves J, Meneses R (2015) Partner selection in co-opetition: a three step model. J Res Mark Entrep 17(1):23–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Atzmüller C, Steiner PM (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology 6(3):128–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagshaw M, Bagshaw C (2001) Co-opetition applied to training: a case study. Ind Commer Train 33(5):175–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruch Y, Lin C-P (2012) All for one, one for all: coopetition and virtual team performance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 79(6):1155–1168

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumard P (2009) An asymmetric perspective on coopetitive strategies. Int J Entrep Small Bus 8(1):6–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Kock S (2000) “Coopetition” in business Networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Ind Mark Manag 29(5):411–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Kock S (2014) Coopetition: Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Ind Mark Manag 43(2):180–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson M, Hinttu S, Kock S (2003) Relationships of cooperation and competition between competitors. Paper presented at Work-in-Progress Paper submitted to the 19th Annual IMP Conference, Lugano, Switzerland

  • Bengtsson M, Wilson T, Kock S, Nisuls J, Söderqvist A (2010) Co-opetition: a source of international opportunities in Finnish SMEs. Compet Rev Int Bus J 20(2):111–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleeke J, Ernst D (1990) The way to win in cross-border alliances. Harvard Bus Rev 69(6):127–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonel E, Rocco E (2007) Coopeting to survive; surviving coopetition. Int Stud Manag Organ 37(2):70–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Fredrich V (2012) Coopetition: performance implications and management antecedents. Int J Innov Manag 16(5):12500281–125002828

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Fredrich V (2016a) Good fences make good neighbors? Directions and safeguards in alliances on business model innovation. J Bus Res 69(11):5196–5202

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Fredrich V (2016b) Learning in coopetition: alliance orientation, network size, and firm types. J Bus Res 69(5):1753–1758

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2013) Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: the double-edged sword of coopetition. J Bus Res 66(10):2060–2070

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken R, Gast J, Kraus S, Bogers M (2015) Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Rev Manag Sci 9(3):577–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken R, Clauß T, Fredrich V (2016a) Product innovation through coopetition in alliances: singular or plural governance? Ind Mark Manag 53:77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Plüschke BD, Pesch R, Kraus S (2016b) Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: joint product innovation and learning from allies. Rev Manag Sci 10(2):381–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken RB, Fredrich V, Ritala P, Kraus S (2017) Coopetition in new product development alliances: advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. Br J Manag. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12213

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger A, Nalebuff B (1996) Co-opetition, 1st edn. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brolos A (2009) Innovative coopetition: the strength of strong ties. Int J Entrep Small Bus 8(1):110–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin LP, Sengupta S (1993) Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. J Mark 57(2):32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J (1996) Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: toward a theoretical integration. Acad Manag Rev 21(1):100–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen H-M, Tseng C-H (2005) The performance of marketing alliances between the tourism industry and credit card issuing banks in Taiwan. Tour Manag 26(1):15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiambaretto P, Fernandez A-S (2016) The evolution of coopetitive and collaborative alliances in an alliance portfolio: the Air France case. Ind Mark Manag 57:75–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke-Hill C, Li H, Davies B (2003) The paradox of co-operation and competition in strategic alliances: towards a multi-paradigm approach. Manag Res News 26(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin JG, Eggers F, Kraus S, Cheng C-F, Chang M-L (2016) Marketing-related resources and radical innovativeness in family and non-family firms: a configurational approach. J Bus Res 69(12):5620–5627

    Google Scholar 

  • Croson R, Anand J, Agarwal R (2007) Using experiments in corporate strategy research. Eur Manag Rev 4(3):173–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JL, Holmberg SR (2012) Best-fit alliance partners: the use of critical success factors in a comprehensive partner selection process. Long Range Plan 45(2):136–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygler J, Dębkowska K (2015) Coopetition effect determinants: competitor’s size, geographical scope, market and technological positions. Organizacija 48(4):219–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Czakon W, Dana LP (2013) Coopetition at work: how firms shaped the airline industry. J Soc Manag 11(2):32–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Czernek K, Czakon W (2016) Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: the case of a Polish region. Tour Manag 52:380–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacin MT, Hitt MA, Levitas E (1997) Selecting partners for successful international alliances: examination of US and Korean firms. J World Bus 32(1):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl J (2014) Conceptualizing coopetition as a process: an outline of change in cooperative and competitive interactions. Ind Mark Manag 43(2):272–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Das TK, Teng B-S (2001) A risk perception model of alliance structuring. J Int Manag 7(1):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn S, Schweiger B, Albers S (2016) Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Eur Manag J 34(5):484–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge P, Garrette B (1997) Anticipating the evolutions and outcomes of strategic alliances between rival firms. Int Stud Manag Organ 27(4):104–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W (2000) Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strateg Manag J 21(2):99–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and source of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23:660–679

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmuti D, Kathawala Y (2001) An overview of strategic alliances. Manag Decis 39(3):205–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch J (1987) The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 22(1):105–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1935) The design of experiments, 1st edn. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler FJ (1993) Survey research methods. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganguli S (2007) Coopetition models in the context of modern business. Icfai J Mark Manag 6(4):6–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Garraffo F, Rocco E (2009) Competitor analysis and interfirm coopetition. In: Dagnino G, Rocco E (eds) Coopetition strategy. Theory, experiments and cases. Routledge, Abington, pp 44–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Gast J, Filser M, Gundolf K, Kraus S (2015) Coopetition research: towards a better understanding of past trends and future directions. Int J Entrep Small Bus 24(4):492–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Geringer JM (1991) Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint ventures. J Int Bus Stud 22(1):41–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimeno J (2004) Competition within and between networks: the contingent effect of competitive embeddedness on alliance formation. Acad Manag J 47(6):820–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Park BJR (2009) Co-opetition and technological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: a multilevel conceptual model. J Small Bus Manag 47(3):308–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Park BJR (2011) Co-opetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Res Policy 40(5):650–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, He J, Madhavan R (2006) Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: an empirical examination. J Manag 32(4):507–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Madhavan R, He J, Bengtsson M (2016) The competition–cooperation paradox in inter-firm relationships: a conceptual framework. Ind Mark Manag 53:7–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden BR (1992) Research notes. The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Acad Manag J 35(4):848–860

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson H, Snehota I (1995) Developing relationships in business networks. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbison JR, Pekar PJ (1998) Smart alliances: a practical guide to repeatable success. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econom J Econom Soc 47(1):153–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt MA, Tyler BB, Hardee C, Park D (1995) Understanding strategic intent in the global marketplace. Acad Manag Executive 9(2):12–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt MA, Dacin MT, Levitas E, Arregle J-L, Borza A (2000) Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Acad Manag J 43(3):449–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox JJ, Kreft IG, Hermkens PL (1991) The analysis of factorial surveys. Sociol Methods Res 19(4):493–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman MR, Steiner SD (1996) The vignette method in business ethics research: current uses and recommendations. In: Stuart E, Ortinau D, Moore E (eds) Marketing: moving toward the 21st century. Winthrop University School of Business Administration, Rock Hill, pp 261–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B (1989) The stability of joint ventures: reciprocity and competitive rivalry. J Ind Econ 38(2):183–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Ambos CT, Eggers F, Cesinger B (2015) Distance and perceptions of risk in internationalization decisions. J Bus Res 68(7):1501–1505

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Meier F, Niemand T (2016) Experimental methods in entrepreneurship research: the status quo. Int J Entrep Behav Res 22(6):958–983

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreft IG, de Leeuw J (1998) Introducing multilevel modeling, 1st edn. Sage Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado AA, Boyd NG, Hanlon SC (1997) Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Acad Manag Rev 22(1):110–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Laine A (2002) Hand in hand with the enemy—defining a competitor from a new perspective. Paper presented at The European Academy of Management, 2nd Annual Conference on Innovative Research in Management, Stockholm, Sweden

  • Levy M, Loebbecke C, Powell P (2003) SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 12(1):3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindström T, Polsa P (2016) Coopetition close to the customer—a case study of a small business network. Ind Mark Manag 53:207–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y (2004) A coopetition perspective of MNC–host government relations. J Int Manag 10(4):431–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y (2005) Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. J World Bus 40(1):71–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y (2007) A coopetition perspective of global competition. J World Bus 42(2):129–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan R, Gnyawali DR, He J (2004) Two’s company, three’s a crowd? Triads in cooperative-competitive networks. Acad Manag J 47(6):918–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariani MM (2007) Coopetition as an emergent strategy: empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera houses. Int Stud Manag Organ 37(2):97–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin E (2004) Vignettes and respondent debriefing for questionnaire design and evaluation. In: Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E, Martin J, Singer E (eds) Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 149–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4(2):133–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Nalebuff BJ, Brandenburger AM (1997) Co-opetition: competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy Leadersh 25(6):28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen B, Nielsen S (2011) The role of top management team international orientation in international strategic decision-making: the choice of foreign entry mode. J World Bus 46(2):185–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Osarenkhoe A (2010) A coopetition strategy: a study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation. Bus Strategy Ser 11(6):343–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Padula G, Dagnino GB (2007) Untangling the rise of coopetition: the intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. Int Stud Manag Organ 37(2):32–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Park SH, Russo MV (1996) When competition eclipses cooperation: an event history analysis of joint venture failure. Manag Sci 42(6):875–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer Science & Business Media, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1990a) The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Bus Rev 68(2):73–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1990b) Compete, don’t collaborate. Economist 9:17–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigtering C, Kraus S, Eggers F, Jensen SH (2014) A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial orientation/growth relationship in service firms and manufacturing firms. Serv Ind J 34(4):275–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P (2009) Is coopetition different from cooperation? The impact of market rivalry on value creation in alliances. Int J Intellect Property Manag 3(1):39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P (2012) ‘Coopetition strategy—when is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. Br J Manag 23(3):307–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P (2013) Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition: the role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. J Prod Innov Manag 30(1):154–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P, Tidström A (2014) Untangling the value-creation and value-appropriation elements of coopetition strategy: a longitudinal analysis on the firm and relational levels. Scand J Manag 30(4):498–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P, Golnam A, Wegmann A (2014) Coopetition-based business models: the case of Amazon.com. Ind Mark Manag 43(2):236–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala P, Kraus S, Bouncken R (2016) Introduction to coopetition and innovation: contemporary topics and future research opportunities. Int J Technol Manag 71(1/2):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi PH, Anderson AB (1982) The factorial survey approach: an introduction. In: Rossi PH, Nock SL (eds) Measuring social judgments: the factorial survey approach. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusko R (2011) Exploring the concept of coopetition: a typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Ind Mark Manag 40(2):311–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmiele A, Sofka W (2007) Internationalizing R&D co-opetition: dress for the dance with the devil. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, No. 07-045

  • Shah RH, Swaminathan V (2008) Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: the moderating role of alliance context. Strateg Manag J 29(5):471–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Solesvik MZ, Westhead P (2010) Partner selection for strategic alliances: case study insights from the maritime industry. Ind Manag Data Syst 110(6):841–860

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomski P (2011) The horizons of coopetition: the analysis of the selected aspects of application. Manag Organ Syst Res 59:131–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley K (2007) Coopetition: an introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. Int Stud Manag Organ 37(2):11–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson I, Young L (2002) On cooperating: firms, relations and networks. J Bus Res 55(2):123–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer A, McEvily B, Perrone V (1998) Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ Sci 9(2):141–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakrzewska-Bielawska A (2013) Coopetition in high-technology firms: resource-based determinants. In: Zaharim A, Rodrigues R (eds) Recent advances in management, marketing and finances. WSEAS Press, Cambridge, pp 51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakrzewska-Bielawska A (2015) Coopetition? Yes, but who with? The selection of coopetition partners by high-tech firms. J Am Acad Bus 20(2):159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Zineldin M (2004) Co-opetition: the organisation of the future. Mark Intell Plan 22(7):780–790

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Entrepreneurship, University of Liechtenstein, Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein

    Sascha Kraus, Fabian Meier & Thomas Niemand

  2. Chair of Strategic Management and Organization, University of Bayreuth, Prieserstr. 2, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany

    Ricarda B. Bouncken

  3. School of Business and Management, Laappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, 53851, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Paavo Ritala

Authors
  1. Sascha Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabian Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Niemand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricarda B. Bouncken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paavo Ritala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sascha Kraus.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Sample scenario

The following sample scenario shows the case introduction, followed by an illustration of the sample scenario for the indirect competitor (“SCNF is the French railway company”) that wants to cooperate in far from customer activities (“research & development and logistics”) with homogeneous resources (“similar”). The vignettes that are alternated between the eight different scenarios are here highlighted by italic letters, but were not highlighted in the actual presentation to the participants. It should be noted that due to the German-speaking focus area of this study, the case as well as the questions were provided in German (Table 6).

Table 6 Measurement constructs, factor and reliability measures
Full size table

1.1.1 Introduction to the case

Once considered exotic and rare, alliances in the airline industry have become a necessary part of business. Airlines want to take advantage of the growing international market, but want to avoid making huge investments in new markets. Airlines have found that a way to gain advantages over competitors is to collaborate with other companies.

1.1.2 Scenario

Imagine that you are a member of the executive board with strategy responsibility at the in the German airline Lufthansa.

SCNF is the French railway company of the same size as Lufthansa, which competes for customers with Lufthansa on several routes.

SCNF recently approached Lufthansa, showing interest to form a new alliance with each other and collaborate in research & development and logistics activities. Lufthansa’s information shows, that SCNF possesses research & development and logistics resources similar those of Lufthansa.

You do not know anybody from SCNF.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kraus, S., Meier, F., Niemand, T. et al. In search for the ideal coopetition partner: an experimental study. Rev Manag Sci 12, 1025–1053 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0237-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0237-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation