Generating Win-Win Strategies for Software Businesses Under Coopetition: A Strategic Modeling Approach

  • Vik PantEmail author
  • Eric Yu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 336)


Interorganizational coopetition describes a phenomenon in which businesses cooperate and compete simultaneously. Such behavior is commonplace among software firms wherein vendors concomitantly deal with each other both as partners and as rivals. Sustainable coopetitive relationships are predicated on the logic of win-win strategies. Conversely, win-lose or lose-lose strategies do not lead to durable coopetitive relationships. This aspect of coopetition requires decision-makers in coopeting software businesses to generate and analyze win-win strategies. This paper proposes a strategic modeling approach to systematically search for alternatives and generate win-win strategies. This approach synergistically combines i* goal-modeling to analyze the distributed intentional structures of actors and Game Tree decision-modeling to reason about the moves and countermoves of actors. An illustrative example of a published case study is presented to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of this methodology.


Strategic modeling Coopetition Win-win Positive-sum 


  1. 1.
    Chesbrough, H.: Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, pp. 0–19, 400 p. (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jansen, S., Finkelstein, A., Brinkkemper, S.: A sense of community: a research agenda for software ecosystems. In: 31st International Conference on Software Engineering Companion Volume, pp. 187–190. IEEE, May 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J.: Co-opetition. Doubleday, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duc, A.N., Cruzes, D.S., Hanssen, G.K., Snarby, T., Abrahamsson, P.: Coopetition of software firms in open source software ecosystems. In: Ojala, A., Holmström Olsson, H., Werder, K. (eds.) ICSOB 2017. LNBIP, vol. 304, pp. 146–160. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coutinho, E.F., Viana, D., dos Santos, R.P.: An exploratory study on the need for modeling software ecosystems: the case of SOLAR SECO. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Modelling in Software Engineering, pp. 47–53. IEEE Press, May 2017Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rausch, A., Bartelt, C., Herold, S., Klus, H., Niebuhr, D.: From software systems to complex software ecosystems: model- and constraint-based engineering of ecosystems. In: Münch, J., Schmid, K. (eds.) Perspectives on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 61–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boucharas, V., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S.: Formalizing software ecosystem modeling. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Open Component Ecosystems, pp. 41–50. ACM, August 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Handoyo, E., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S.: Software ecosystem modeling: the value chains. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital Ecosystems, pp. 17–24. ACM, October 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handoyo, E.: Software ecosystem modeling. In: Herzwurm, G., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOB 2013. LNBIP, vol. 150, pp. 227–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alves, A.M., Pessoa, M., Salviano, C.F.: Towards a systemic maturity model for public software ecosystems. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2011. CCIS, vol. 155, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu, E., Deng, S.: Understanding software ecosystems: a strategic modeling approach. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Software Ecosystems, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 65–76, June 2011Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pant, V., Yu, E.: Understanding strategic moves and reciprocity on software ecosystems: a strategic modeling approach. In: 9th International Workshop on Software Ecosystems (IWSECO 2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padula, G., Dagnino, G.B.: Untangling the rise of coopetition: the intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 37(2), 32–52 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J.: The Right Game: Use Game Theory to Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, pp. 57–71 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dixit, A.K., Nalebuff, B.: The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist’s Guide to Success in Business & Life. WW Norton & Company, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magdon-Ismail, M., Busch, C., Krishnamoorthy, M.S.: Cake-cutting is not a piece of cake. In: Alt, H., Habib, M. (eds.) STACS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2607, pp. 596–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barbanel, J.B., Brams, S.J., Stromquist, W.: Cutting a pie is not a piece of cake. Am. Math. Mon. 116(6), 496–514 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, Y., Lai, J.K., Parkes, D.C., Procaccia, A.D.: Truth, justice, and cake cutting. Games Econ. Behav. 77(1), 284–297 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deng, X., Qi, Q., Saberi, A.: Algorithmic solutions for envy-free cake cutting. Oper. Res. 60(6), 1461–1476 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aziz, H., Mackenzie, S.: A discrete and bounded envy-free cake cutting protocol for any number of agents. In: 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 416–427. IEEE, October 2016Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dall’Aglio, M., Hill, T.P.: Maximin share and minimax envy in fair-division problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 281(1), 346–361 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghazawneh, A., Henfridsson, O.: Governing third-party development through platform boundary resources. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS), St. Louis (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghazawneh, A., Henfridsson, O.: Micro-strategizing in platform ecosystems: a multiple case study. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2011, Shanghai, China (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sorensen, C., Yoo, Y.: Distributed tuning of boundary resources: the case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Q.: Manag. Inf. Syst. 39(1), 217–243 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prince, J.D.: HTML5: not just a substitute for flash. J. Electron. Resour. Med. Libr. 10(2), 108–112 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Elaluf-Calderwood, S.M., Eaton, B.D., Sørensen, C., Yoo, Y.: Control as a strategy for the development of generativity in business models for mobile platforms. In: 15th International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks (ICIN), pp. 271–276. IEEE, October 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nalebuff, B.J., Brandenburger, A.M.: Co-opetition: competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy Leadersh. 25(6), 28–33 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brandenburger, A.M., Stuart, H.W.: Value-based business strategy. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 5(1), 5–24 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brandenburger, A., Stuart, H.: Biform games. Manage. Sci. 53(4), 537–549 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fricker, S.: Specification and analysis of requirements negotiation strategy in software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Software Ecosystems (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jansen, S., Handoyo, E., Alves, C.: Scientists’ needs in software ecosystem modeling. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Ecosystems (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Santos, G.A.V.: A theory of power in software ecosystems formed by small-to-medium enterprises. Ph.D. thesis (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boudreau, K.J.: Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organ. Sci. 23(5), 1409–1427 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koller, D., Megiddo, N.: The complexity of two-person zero-sum games in extensive form. Games Econ. Behav. 4(4), 528–552 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations