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.
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
Summary Project objectives This study fits into a larger research project on logistics collaboration and outsourcing decisions. The final objective of this larger project is to analyze the logistics collaboration decision in more detail to identify thresholds in these decisions. To reach the overall objectives, the first step is to get a clearer picture on the chemical and logistics service providers industry, sectors of our study, and on logistics collaboration in these sectors. The results of this first phase are presented in this report. Project Approach The study consists of two parts: literature review and five case studies within the chemical industry. The literature covers three topics: logistics collaboration, logistics outsourcing and purchasing of logistics services. The five case studies are used to refine the theoretical findings of the literature review. Conclusions Main observations during the case studies can be summarized as follows: Most analyzed collaborative relationships between shippers and logistics service providers in the chemical industry are still focused on operational execution of logistics activities with a short term horizon. Supply management design and control are often retained by the shippers. Despite the time and cost intensive character of a logistics service buying process, shippers tendering on a very regular basis. The decision to start a new tender project should more often be based on an integral approach that includes all tender related costs. A lower frequency of tendering could create more stability in supply chains. Beside, it will give both, shippers and LSPs, the possibility to improve the quality of the remaining projects. Price is still a dominating decision criterion in selecting a LSP. This is not an issue as long as the comparison of costs is based on an integral approach, and when shippers balance the cost criterion within their total set of criteria for sourcing logistics services. At the shippers' side there is an increased awareness of the need of more solid collaboration with logistics service providers. Nevertheless, in many cases this increased awareness does not actually result in the required actions to establish more intensive collaboration. Over the last years the logistics service providers industry was characterized by low profit margins, strong fragmentation and price competition. Nowadays, the market for LSPs is changing, because of an increasing demand for logistics services. To benefit from this situation a more pro-active role of the service providers is required in building stronger relationships with their customers. They should pay more attention on mid and long term possibilities in a collaborative relation, in stead of only be focused on running the daily operation.
