Coopetition within and between value networks - a typology and a modelling framework

Abstract

This study develops a typology of coopetition in value networks, wherein a distinction is made based on two factors. Firstly, whether coopetition takes place inside a particular value network (i.e., intra-value network coopetition) or between value networks (i.e., inter-value network coopetition); and secondly, whether the nature of collaboration is focused on value leveraging or value co-creation. We present empirical examples from the global ICT sector (Amazon Services, Amazon Marketplace, AIM Alliance, and Windows Mobile Community) to illustrate the four categories identified in the typology. Each example is graphically represented using a modelling framework in order to aid the understanding of various organisational and network structures that can accommodate coopetition as a complex inter-organisational relationship. We suggest that the developed typology and modelling methodology can help researchers and practitioners to better grasp and communicate the role and benefits as well as the network and organisational structures of coopetition within and between value networks.

Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems

“…Compared to the cooperative, the FH represents a different business model based on the principle of strategic co-opetition [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109] and it corresponds to a different hybrid organisational arrangement [110], namely the strategic network or strategic alliance [111][112][113][114][115] because they are inherently profit-driven and not driven by the principle of solidarity and mutual aid that are at the core of the cooperative. In this sense, FHs are horizontal patterned forms of coordination for the aim of constructing and distributing shared value through aggregation and product differentiation, among different typologies of participants which are independent units maintaining a complexity of individual strategic interests not necessarily always convergent.…”

Conceptualising Capabilities and Value Co-Creation in a Digital Business Ecosystem (DBE): A Systematic Literature Review

“…There are three main elements when designing a business model: 1) content (the activities performed in the focal organisation and its business partners), 2) structure (how the performed activities link to each other), and 3) governance (who should perform the activities at where) (Carayannis, Sindakis, & Walter, 2015;Kohler, 2015;Muzellec, Ronteau, & Lambkin, 2015;Novikova & Vuori, 2013;Wei et al, 2014). (Frow et al, 2014) x x x S-33 (Golnam, Ritala, & Wegmann, 2014) x S-2 (Koch & Windsperger, 2017) x x S-22 (Kohler, 2015) x S-14 (Letaifa, 2014) x x S-20 (Lusch, Vargo, & Gustafsson, 2016) x S-9 (Morgan, Feller, & Finnegan, 2013) x x S-34 (Muzellec, Ronteau, & Lambkin, 2015) x S-24 (Novikova & Vuori, 2013) x S-21 (Pagani, 2013) x S-11 (Pera, Occhiocupo, & Clarke, 2016) x S-12 (Ritala & Tidström, 2014) x S-17 x S-23 (Wei et al, 2014) x S-16 (Zott & Amit, 2013) x x Similarly, Ammar and Ouakouak (2015) suggest five dimensions in representing a business model: 1) value proposition, 2) value architecture, 3) value network, 4) value engaged, 5) value generation. Value proposition contains value creation, capture and delivery activities.…”

“…They can also interact with the network of other business actors in this collaborative environment. Examples of value co-created in a DBE are like sharing cost-sharing (where organisations enter a new market with a lower cost), sharing risks and responsibilities, enhancing innovation capabilities, increasing flexibility, sharing resources and skills, increasing customer satisfaction, increasing efficient production, increasing productivity and optimising business performances (Golnam, Ritala, & Wegmann, 2014;Lusch, Vargo, & Gustafsson, 2016).…”

Enjeux de l’évolution de l’architecture relationnelle d’un écosystème d’affaires

“…Bien qu'aujourd'hui, il n'y ait plus aucun doute sur le fait que la complexification des relations inter-organisationnelles nécessite d'appréhender plus largement les configurations des parties-prenantes en retenant comme niveau d'analyse l'ESA, les travaux sur la coopétition manquent encore d'investigations réalisées à ce niveau (Golnam et al, 2014) et inversement. Quelques exceptions, notamment françaises, ont toutefois essayé de comprendre l'impact de la coopétition sur le développement d'un ESA.…”

“…Représentations graphiques : pour chaque défi et donc chacune des trois périodes identifiées, nous avons modélisé les relations entre les acteurs (i.e. l'architecture relationnelle) sous la forme de systèmes imbriqués(Golnam et al, 2014). Nous distinguons d'abord trois niveaux de systèmes : les organisations, les marchés et les industries.…”