Prior work has focused on understanding coopetition tensions and response in bilateral coopetitions. Even though multilateral coopetitions are prevalent in practice they have not been fully studied in terms of coopetition tensions and their management. This omission is problematic. Multilateral coopetitions can complement what we know in prior work because they are inherently complex with multiple actors and greater coordination needs. Hence, we asked: how are tensions experienced and managed in multilateral coopetitions? We answer this question by drawing on 31 interviews and archival data from seven multilateral coopetitions. We found three types of multilateral coopetitions comprising member companies and independent central coordinating organization. We show that actors within each coopetition type experience tensions differently and have varied capabilities to manage these tensions. Our contribution is twofold. First, we complement insights from prior work by opening the black box of coopetition tensions to show that not all coopetition tensions are salient for actors within and across coopetitions. Second, unlike prior work that locates capabilities within focal firms, we show that coopetition capabilities are dispersed across actors, which has implications for value creation and capture.
In large organizations, innovation activities often take place in separate departments, centers, or studios. These departments aim to produce prototypes of solutions to the problems of operational business owners. However, too often these concepts remain in the prototype stage: they are never implemented and fall into what is popularly termed the Valley of Death. A design approach to innovation is presented as a solution to the problem. However, practice shows that teams that use design nevertheless encounter implementation challenges due to the larger infrastructure of the organization they are part of. This research aims to explore which organizational factors contribute to the Valley of Death during design innovation. An embedded multiple case study at a large heritage airline is applied. Four projects are analyzed to identify implementation challenges. A thematic data analysis reveals organizational design, departmental silos, and dissimilar innovation strategies contribute to the formation of, and encounters with, the Valley of Death. Arising resource-assignment challenges that result from these factors are also identified. Materialization, user-centeredness, and holistic problem framing are identified as design practices that mitigate encounters with the Valley of Death, thus leading to projects being fully realized. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12052 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-de-lille-8039372/
MULTIFILE
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of innovative forms of collaboration between different types of enterprises – aimed at scaling social impact – and address the challenges and complexities inherent to these specific types of partnerships. The particular focus is on strategic collaboration between workintegration social enterprises (WISEs) and mainstream, or for-profit enterprises (FPEs) with the shared objective to create more and better employment opportunities for disadvantaged individuals in the labour market. Design/methodology/approach – This study used a qualitative research design. The total sample consisted of 16 small- and medium-sized enterprises (both WISEs and FPEs), which were selected for their proven,business-to-business revenue model and their explicit ambition to create more inclusive jobs for disadvantaged individuals. Data collection and analysis took place between 2021 and 2023 and consisted of: semi-structured interviews with representatives of the participating enterprises to get a better understanding of the way in which current partnerships operate; and co-creative research methods to facilitate change processes – within and outside these partnerships – aimed at creating more social impact. Findings – Most collaborations between WISEs and FPEs start purely transactional, with the exchange of products or services, but once they become more familiarised with each other, the realisation of (joint) social impact becomes more significant. The ambition to further coordinate and integrate operations is prominent, but the partnership process is not without challenges and requires time, commitment and trust. So far, only few collaborations can be considered truly transformational. Originality/value – This study contributes to the discussion on strategic alliances and cross-sector collaborations by providing a conceptual framework and a practical instrument to shape strategic collaboration between social enterprises and FPEs that aim to create more social impact.
LINK
