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 in the context of sustainability. 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.
LINK
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.
DOCUMENT
Competitive advantage is probably the most popular business concept today (Mooney, 2007). This article aims to investigate critically the discourse on competitive advantage, as expressed by business literature, by locating its meanings in the public higher education sector. This research reveals that people working within the HEIs have given broader and more diversified meanings to this concept, which are partly due to the message received from external environment, and partly because of the influence of professional settings in which they function. By studying these diversified meanings, 13 elements are identified in constructing the competitive advantages of higher education institutions. Furthermore, the importance of each element is rated and ranked which enables us to assess the quantitative significance. The clarification of this container concept “competitive advantage” leads to the conclusion that the business way of defining of competitive advantage should be critically reviewed and verified in the context of public higher education sector, because the competition in the public education market is different from the normal market competition defined by the business literature.
LINK
