Dissertation topic formulation approaches

There are two dissertation topic formulation approaches: The easy approach and the challenging  approach: 


The easy approach: come up with a topic that appears sufficiently sophisticated but is intellectually easy to do. The problem: do not expected to have sophisticated analysis content in the dissertation reports nor inspiring findings/ recommendations. High risk of the dissertation report earning a failure grade and minimal intellectual learning in the project process. Difficult to produce quality content to meet dissertation report word count requirement.

The challenging approach: learn  some powerful intellectual concepts to apply on a serious and challenging topic with the purpose of producing some findings with high practical and academic values in the dissertation reports. High risk of committing much time to learn and investigate on the dissertation topic. May need additional personal coaching to support the dissertation work and intellectual learning required.

Mind mapping the topic of co-opetition

Mind mapping the topic of co-opetition

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: The topic of co-opetition is a main one in Strategic Management. This article makes use of the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the knowledge structure of co-opetition. The finding of the review exercise is that its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c) Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from the co-opetition literature review. The article offers some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of co-opetition, literature review and the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.

Key words: Co-opetition, literature review, mind map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach

Introduction

Co-opetition is a main topic in Strategic Management. It is of academic and pedagogical interest to the writer who has been a lecturer on Strategic Management for some tertiary education centres in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents his literature review findings on co-opetition using the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by this writer in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number of topics, such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and customer relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not particularly novel as mind mapping has been employed in literature review since its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:

1.      Render an image of the knowledge structure of co-opetition via the application of the MMBLR approach;

2.      Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as co-opetition.

The findings from this literature review exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in the topics of co-opetition, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study co-opetition is presented.

On the mind mapping-based literature review approach

The mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. It is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR approach). To conduct the approach, the reviewer needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.

Mind mapping-based literature review on co-opetition: step 1 findings

Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this is the co-opetition topic. The writer gathers some academic articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar. With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called points here). The points from the co-opetition literature are then grouped into four themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight the key concepts involved.

Theme 1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information

Point 1.1.              “Co-opetition is an extension of networking. It involves traditional competitors actively working together to create something that none of them could do alone. Competition does not die between the parties involved in co-opetition. It is simply delayed until the join project is complete” (Emerald, 2002);

Point 1.2.              “Contrary to value-adding partnerships, co-opetition includes horizontal collaborative relations as well as competitive relations in vertical and horizontal directions and at the same time. Brandenburger and Nalebuff … suggest therefore the concept of value net, which places a single company between customers and suppliers (= vertical dimension) who can be either complementors or competitors (= horizontal dimension)” (Kotzab and Teller, 2003);

Point 1.3.              “According to Bengtsson and Kock …, there are three sub-categories of co-opetition; namely, cooperation-dominated relations, equal relations (where the level of cooperation and competition is the same) and competition-dominated relations” (Kock, Nisuls and Söderqvist, 2010);

Point 1.4.              “Bengtsson and Kock … conclude that a company can simultaneously have four types of relations with their competitors; namely cooperation, competition, coexistence, and co-opetition” (Kock, Nisuls and Söderqvist, 2010);

Theme 2: Major underlying theories and thinking

Point 2.1.              “Coviello and Munro …. conclude that in order to fully understand the internationalization process, there is a need to study the company’s network, since there are empirical results which indicate that the internationalization process is influenced by network relations as well as by international opportunities deriving from these relations” (Kock, Nisuls and Söderqvist, 2010);

Point 2.2.              “Co-operative elements can nourish joint payoff creation through exploiting complementary resources cooperatively. Meanwhile, competitive elements can breed conflicts that may emerge when either party emphasizes its own gains from specific projects or transactions in which respective needs are not compatible. Competitive aims always exist because of the underlying incentive for any party to share a higher percentage of returns generated from co-operation” (Gurnani, Erkoc and Luo, 2007);

Point 2.3.              “Co-opetitive relationships can be quite multifaceted, for example the product development departments of two companies may have extensive cooperation while the marketing departments may be in fierce competition” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 2.4.              “From the resource-based view, co-opetition allows firms to specialise in core businesses of the international value chain, thus improving efficiency and providing scale economies …. At the same time, firms can develop new capabilities derived from a structural position in the network and from competitive opportunities …. These benefits are usually greater for small businesses than for large firms …, since the challenges of exporting activities are more daunting for the former” (Galdeano-Gómez, Pérez-Mesa and Giagnocavo, 2015);

Point 2.5.              “One of the core premises of the network economy is that business networks that effectively source and coordinate resources and capabilities between participating companies will be highly competitive” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 2.6.              “Over the last years, various resource-based and capability-based works analysed the co-opetitive strategies of firms. In general, RBV [resource-based view] scholars noted that collaboration between competitors may be a critical (but risky) way to increase their rents since this phenomenon is always, somehow, a form of competition. The main benefit of co-opetition for a focal firm refers to the learning of units of competitors knowledge” (Schiavone and Simoni, 2011);

Point 2.7.              “The decision regarding which activities will be dominated by cooperation and which activities will be characterized by competition can be very difficult …. The results of Bengtsson and Kock …. reveal that activities further away from the customer tend to be more cooperation oriented, while activities closer to the customer are usually, though not always, characterized by competition” (Kock, Nisuls and Söderqvist, 2010);

Point 2.8.              “Two approaches (and related principles) have been developed in extant coopetition literature to manage the tensions stemming from the simultaneous pursuit of competition and collaboration: separation of collaboration… and competition versus integration of the two” (Mariani, 2016);

Point 2.9.              “Typically, co-opetitive relationships seem to emerge far from the customer base within areas that might not be visible to an actual or potential client. The examples cited by Bengtsson and Kock range from sharing R&D facilities and knowledge to setting up joint distribution or recycling systems. Co-opetitors pull resources there were cooperation seems most beneficial” (Peinado, Jarvin and Jouanny, 2013);

Point 2.10.         “Value-added partnerships were first discussed by Johnston and Lawrence…, and received an update by Hines … who suggested the creation of value networks by outsourcing competitive advantages. Therefore all partners can achieve advantages by leverage knowledge and skill within the complete supply chain …. Such arrangements focus on vertical collaborations by diminishing non value-adding and increasing value-adding activities between supply-chain partners. The successful integration of activities creates the competitive advantage of the total chain” (Kotzab and Teller, 2003);

Point 2.11.         “…..every game takes place in a larger context. This is what allows a game’s boundaries to be expanded or simply moved” (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996);

Point 2.12.         “…organizational age and size may be related to co-opetition, where older and larger agencies are more likely to be involved in a variety of complex relationships …, particularly if they are familiar with the organizational ecology of local service provision. Over time, agencies become more familiar, connected, and learn how to form and manage relationships with other organizations in a historically-shared marketplace” (Bunger et al., 2014);

Point 2.13.         “…the syncretism between competition and cooperation will foster greater knowledge seeking and development, economic and market growth, and technological progress than either competition or cooperation pursued separately” (Garcia and Velasco, 2002);

Point 2.14.         “According to transaction costs theory, two main factors are considered …: transaction-specificity and uncertainty. Thus, small firms can adopt co-opetitive strategies in order to combine complementary strengths to develop their specific assets, such as products and technology required in foreign markets” (Galdeano-Gómez, Pérez-Mesa and Giagnocavo, 2015);

Point 2.15.         “Business is a cooperation when it comes to creating a pie and competition when it comes to dividing it up” (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996);

Point 2.16.         “Collaboration is a type of interorganizational relationship where partners work toward a common goal ….. Collaboration involves significant investment, adjustments in the way partners operate in response to one another, and the risk of lost autonomy” (Bunger et al., 2014);

Point 2.17.         “Partnering agility is defined as the ability to leverage assets, knowledge, and competence of business partners (suppliers, distributors, contract manufacturers, and logistics providers) in defining and utilizing business innovations. Customer agility is defined as the ability to co-opt customers in exploration and exploitation of innovation opportunities” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 2.18.         “There are many definitions of competition and competitors. Some authors have chosen a narrow approach, and define it as actors that produce and market the same products …. Brandenburger and Nalebuff …apply a broad definition of competition, that in essence views competition as conflicting interests between companies. This perspective will see almost any interaction between different companies as having an element of competition” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 2.19.         “Transaction cost theorists argue that co-opetition is a firms’ response to additional costs in realising exchanges created by market’s imperfections ….Game theory scholars advance the idea that competitors may decide to collaborate as a means to escape the well-known “prisoner dilemma” …. A large literature stream suggests that co-opetition should be conceived as a network embeddedness phenomenon …. Finally, resource based view (RBV) scholars explain co-opetition as the need for firms to access resources otherwise difficult to obtain” (Schiavone and Simoni, 2011);

Point 2.20.         “While the pursuit co-opetition strategy has the potential to create competitive advantages, it is quite challenging to pursue due to very high levels of tension involved in co-opetition … as it embodies opposing forces of competition and collaboration and the need to work together to generate higher common value and the need to compete with each other to get a large portion of the value …. These tensions can be very strong and could jeopardize effective pursuit of co-opetition” (Fermandez, Roy and Gnyawali, 2014);

Theme 3: Main research topics and issues

Point 3.1.              “The co-opetition model does not consider the power-ratio among players to decide what game to play” (Da Costa and Bottura, 2009);

Point 3.2.              “….while research on coopetition has focused on the motives, likelihood, interaction, process, and outcome of coopetition at the inter individual, intra-organizational and inter-organizational levels, only a few studies … have been conducted on the inter-network level” (Mariani, 2016);

Point 3.3.              “A variety of mechanisms have been studied to improve supply chain efficiency including buy-back agreements …, quantity commitment contracts …, and information sharing …. However, the operations literature has not studied co-opetitive investment interactions among firms in a supply chain” (Gurnani, Erkoc and Luo, 2007);

Point 3.4.              “… it would seem that “co-opetition is neither an extension of competition theory nor an extension of cooperation theory. It is in fact a specific distinctive research object, which calls for theory, method and managerial practice”…” (Peinado, Jarvin and Jouanny, 2013);

Point 3.5.              “….coopetition is now conceived as “a paradoxical relationship between two or more actors, regardless of whether they are in horizontal or vertical relationships, simultaneously involved in cooperative and competitive interactions.” …The contradictions inherent in coopetition need to find appropriate governance forms and structures …. With a few exceptions …., extant literature has not yet analysed in depth if and how formal governance forms such as contracts are used to manage coopetitive interactions” (Mariani, 2016);

Point 3.6.              “Conceptualizing collaboration and competition as interrelated relational processes between organizations opens the door to new questions about the prevalence, drivers, and impact of co-opetition” (Bunger et al., 2014);

Point 3.7.              “Co-opetition entails the sharing of knowledge which may be a key source of competitive advantage. Under co-opetition there is a paradox that the knowledge shared for cooperation may also be used for competition. While the existence of this problem is known, there is little investigation of how it may be modelled and, thus, managed” (Loebecke, Van Fenema and Powell, 1999);

Point 3.8.              “In general, two main streams of co-opetition research can be identified. The first describes co-opetition as the general tension underlying strategic alliances …; the second concentrates more explicitly on how rivals can co-operate” (Wilhelm and Fohlbacher, 2011);

Point 3.9.              “Research on cooperation and competition has been conducted within different theoretical fields. Interaction between competitors has been studied directly in economic theory with a focus on industrial structure rather than relationships …. In literature on strategic alliances …, relationships rather than structure are analyzed. A dyadic and paradoxical relationship may emerge when two firms cooperate in some activities in a strategic alliance context, and at the same time compete with each other in other activities …. This phenomenon is called co-opetition” (Garcia and Velasco, 2002);

Point 3.10.         “Scholars recognised and studied co-opetition in several industries: biotechnology …, automobile …, airlines …, steel …, microprocessors …, aircraft manufacturing” (Schiavone and Simoni, 2011);

Point 3.11.         “The study of co-opetition is at the beginning of its lifecycle, and there is a lack of research describing the possible relationships between co-opetition and alliance performance. As a result, we know little about the dynamics of co-opetition, and if and how co-opetition influences performance in e-business alliances” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 3.12.         “The term co-opetition was coined by Raymond Noorda, the founder of Novell Inc. …., and is defined as simultaneous cooperation and competition….. The two traditional research perspectives of competition and cooperation have evolved as different research streams. In competition, the focus is on rent appropriation strategies whereas in cooperation, the focus is on collective strategies for rent generation” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 3.13.         “Traditionally, competitive and cooperative theory has been analyzed as different research streams. Firstly, competitive advantages are realized either when a firm gains an advantageous position in an industry or when it mobilizes and deploys core competencies … that enable it to offer superior products to customers relative to competitors … The alternative paradigm emphasizes the development of collaborative advantage…. The strategic collaborations represent institutions of privileged relations among firms and other organizations are based on the advantage reciprocity, power association searching the same pre-established target” (Garcia and Velasco, 2002);

Theme 4: Major trends and issues related to practices

Point 4.1.              “This phenomenon [co-opetition] is quite common in mature and/or high-tech industries, in which competitiveness and market positions are hard to keep or acquire just with “stand-alone” strategies …. Co-opetition can emerge between firms at both dyadic and/or network levels and relate to one level (simple co-opetition) or more levels (complex co-opetition) of firms value chains at the same time” (Schiavone and Simoni, 2011);

Point 4.2.              “Coopetition, defined as simultaneous cooperation and competition …., has emerged as an interesting new topic in strategic management. We now see co-opetition in a number of cases in the new electronic business economy. This is however an area that has received little attention from academia” (Eikebrokk and Olsen, 2005);

Point 4.3.              “Generally speaking, from the point of view of supply chain analyses, the relationships of co-opetition can be grouped into ….: horizontal relationships (supplier-supplier), competition and cooperation with firms from the same sector in the same phase of the supply chain; and vertical relationships (buyer-supplier), basically with firms from other phases of the distribution chain. Both types tend to occur in agrifood industries in which multilateral relationships with a large number of firms and partners, e.g. farmers, supermarkets, wholesalers, etc., are the order of the day” (Galdeano-Gómez, Pérez-Mesa and Giagnocavo, 2015);

Point 4.4.              “The vegetable market, particularly of fresh produce, is characterised by the large number of actors in the supply chain, and in recent decades large retailers have gained greater control ….. In the case of Spain the marketing firms, related primarily to vegetable producers, are of small scale and their co-opetitive strategies … have received increasing attention due to greater internationalisation and market liberalisation, in response to the remarkable power of buyers in various food distribution channels” (Galdeano-Gómez, Pérez-Mesa and Giagnocavo, 2015);

Point 4.5.              “The willingness to market a tourist destination as a unified product increases if consideration is taken of the norms and values and differing interests of the entrepreneurs. A single, unified destination product is not a single product from the tourist’s perspective, but consists of a number of varying products. A major problem in the initial composition of the product of a destination is that actors often approach the question from a producer’s perspective; … they should approach the question from a customer perspective” (Grägsjö, 2003);

Point 4.6.              “… regarding the typical production-marketing activities in the agrifood sector, the vertical relationships with international retailers, who have greater market power, constitute a major driver of supplier-supplier co-opetition. These suppliers derive benefits from cooperation, including cost advantages, as the result of savings made by coordinating distribution channels, access to information, technology and innovation. At the same time, the firm’s individual action in this network means that a degree of competition is maintained, which allows economic efficiency by enabling firms to allocate scarce resources optimally and reduce transactions costs” (Galdeano-Gómez, Pérez-Mesa and Giagnocavo, 2015);

Point 4.7.              “….the relative safety of the classroom allows for students to cooperate as well as compete, utilizing the concept of co-opetition. This introduces the concept and allows them to experience and explore it within the safer confines of the strategy course” (Charlebois and Von Massow, 2015);

Point 4.8.              “Agencies [human service agencies] collaborate around both service delivery and administrative functions …. Through service delivery collaboration, agencies align their programmatic offerings via a variety of activities including client referrals, joint service programming, and/or sharing data across organizations to ensure that both partners have complete and updated information about their shared clients. Partners also align their operational infrastructure and administrative functions by sharing responsibility or resources for financial allocation and budgeting, human resource functions, billing, staff training, or other support functions” (Bunger et al., 2014);

Point 4.9.              “By locating close together, antique stores, though competitors in dividing up the market, become complementors in creating the market in the first place” (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996);

Point 4.10.         “Competition among agencies [human service agencies] is influenced by both the supply of needed resources and the number of agencies demanding those resources. Private child welfare agencies may encounter competition with other child serving agencies that rely on the same or similar financial and human resources, and can lead to conflict, hardship, or going out of business” (Bunger et al., 2014);

Point 4.11.         “Human service agencies are encouraged to collaborate with other public and private agencies in providing services to children and families. However, they also often compete with these same partners for funding, qualified staff, and clientele. Although little is known about complex interagency dynamics of competition and collaboration in the child-serving sector, evidence suggests that competition can undermine collaboration unless managed strategically” (Bunger et al., 2014);

Point 4.12.         “In the case of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)-supplier networks in the automobile industry, it seems that competition takes place mainly between suppliers on the horizontal level. Relations between the OEM and a supplier, on the other hand, are governed mainly by co-operation. However, fierce competitive tensions at the horizontal level may negatively affect co-operation at the vertical level, as interdependencies between these pairs of relations exist within the network” (Wilhelm and Fohlbacher, 2011);

Point 4.13.         “The Borders Group partnered with Amazon.com under a long-term contract in 2001. Under the agreement Amazon.com provided design and underlying technology to its rival bookseller'sWeb site, took over customer service and order fulfillment, and was compensated by sharing a portion of the sales from Borders.com. Toys ‘R’Us and Target also formed a similar form of collaboration with Amazon.com in 2000 and 2001, respectively” (Zhang and Frazier, 2011);

Point 4.14.         “Undoubtedly, the strong trust and familiarity present in Japanese supplier networks plays an important role in knowledge sharing. However, as previous studies have stressed the co-operative side of Japanese supplier networks ….., we would like to concentrate on the competitive aspects that also exist. Or, in the words of Cusumano and Takeishi …, it is the ‘more subtle form of competition’ inherent in the Toyota network that plays a crucial role in knowledge creation” (Wilhelm and Fohlbacher, 2011);

Each of the four themes has a set of associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the co-opetition topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the co-opetition literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on co-opetition Facebook page for additional information on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is an exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s literature. Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes[1] and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2 finding, i.e., a companion mind map on co-opetition, is presented in the next section.

Mind mapping-based literature review on co-opetition: step 2 (mind mapping) output

By adopting the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1 on co-opetition, the writer constructs a companion mind map shown as Figure 1.

Referring to the mind map on co-opetition, the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map renders an image of the knowledge structure on co-opetition based on the thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning process on literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and teaching material. This mind mapping exercise confirms the writer’s previous experience using on the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to the Literature on literature review Facebook page and the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.

Concluding remarks

The MMBLR approach to study co-opetition provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016). No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on co-opetition in the field of Strategic Management. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of the knowledge structure on co-opetition in the form of a mind map should also be of academic value to those who research on co-opetition.

Bibliography

1.      Brandenburger, A.M. and B.J. Nalebuff. 1996. Co-opetition, A Currency Book, New York.

2.      Bunger, A.C., C. Collins-Camargo, B. McBeath, E. Chuang, M. Pérez-Jolles and R. Wells. 2014. “Collaboration, competition, and co-opetition: Interorganizational dynamics between private child welfare agencies and child serving sectors” Children and Youth Services Review 38, Elsevier: 113-122.

3.      Charlebois, S. and M. Von Massow. 2015. “The effectiveness of co-opetition in a live case study approach: Increasing knowledge of an industry while helping others in a competitive MBA classroom environment” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 7(2), Emerald: 164-179.

4.      Da Costa, E.A. and C.P. Bottura. 2009. “The game to play: expanding the co-opetition proposal through the strategic games matrix” International Journal of Conflict Management 20(2), Emerald: 132-157.

5.      Eikebrokk, T.R. and D.H. Olsen. 2005. “Co-opetition and e-Business Success in SMEs: An Empirical Investigation of European SMEs” Proceedings of the 38^th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.

6.      Emerald. 2002. “Co-opetition provides the Halifax with tailor-made training” Education + Training 44(7), Emerald: 322-323.

7.      Fermandez, A., F.L. Roy and D.R. Gnyawali. 2014. “Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe” Industrial Marketing Management 43, Elsevier: 222-235.

8.      Galdeano-Gómez, E., J.C. Pérez-Mesa and C.L. Giagnocavo. 2015. “Food exporters and co-opetition relationships: an analysis on the vegetable supply chain” British Food Journal 117(5), Emerald: 1596-1609.

9.      Garcia, C.Q. and C.A.B. Velasco. 2002. “Co-opetition and performance: evidence from European biotechnology industry” II Annual Conference on EURAM on “Innovative research in management” Stockholm (Sweden) May 9-11, Track “Coopetition strategy: towards a new kind of interfirm dynamics”.

10. Grägsjö, v.F. 2003. “Destination networking: co-opetition in peripheral surroundings” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33(5), Emerald: 427-448.

11. Gurnani, H., M. Erkoc and Y. Luo. 2007. “Impact of product pricing and timing of investment decisions on supply chain co-opetition” European Journal of Operational Research 180, Elsevier: 228-248.

12. Ho, J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).

13. Kock, S., J. Nisuls and A. Söderqvist. 2010. “Co-opetition: a source of international opportunities in Finnish SMEs” Competitiveness Review 20(2), Emerald: 111-125.

14. Kotzab, H. and C. Teller. 2003. “Value-adding partnerships and co-opetition models in the grocery industry” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33(3), Emerald: 268-281.

15. Literature on co-opetition Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-co-opetition-444550182563227/).

16. Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).

17. Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).

18. Loebecke, C., P.C. Van Fenema and P. Powell. 1999. “Co-Opetition and Knwoledge Transfer” Database for Advances in Information Systems 30(2), Spring, ABI/INFORM Global: 14-25.

19. Mariani, M.M. 2016. “Coordination in inter-network co-opetition: Evidence from the tourism sector” Industrial Marketing Management 53, Elsevier: 103-123.

20. Peinado, A., M. Jarvin and C. Jouanny. 2013. “Co-opetition as the new path to innovation? Negotiating strategic change through user-centred design approaches” Ethnographic Praxis Industry Conference Session 5: 314-334.

21. Schiavone, F. and M. Simoni. 2011. “An experience-based view of co-opetition in R&D networks” European Journal of Innovation Management 14(2), Emerald: 136-154.

22. Wilhelm, M.M. and F. Fohlbacher. 2011. “Co-opetition and knowledge co-creation in Japanese supplier-networks: The case of Toyota” Asian Business & Management 10(1), Palgrave: 66-86.

23. Zhang, J. and G.V.  Frazier. 2011. “Strategic alliance via co-opetition: Supply chain partnership with a competitor” Decision Support Systems 51, Elsevier: 853-863.

---

[1]There is no sub-theme generated in this analysis on co-opetition.