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 38th 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.
pdf version at: https://www.academia.edu/32101585/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_co-opetition
ReplyDelete