1 Introduction
The concept of coopetition has gained significant traction within the domain of strategic management research and practice (Amata et al.
2022; Ritala et al.
2009). Nowadays, it is acknowledged as a cognitively distinct theory (Czakon et al.
2014; Gnyawali and Charleton
2018) which remains conceptually embedded in a set of varied theoretical contexts (e.g. strategic alliances, the network view, the knowledge-based view, and the behavioural view—Corbo et al.
2023; Czakon et al.
2020a; Devece et al.
2019). However, the strongest embeddedness is found in game theory and the resource-based view (Bacon et al.
2020; Meena et al.
2023).
Coopetition refers to the simultaneous pursuit and execution of both cooperation and competition within one—dynamic, multidimensional, complex and mutual—relationship (Bouncken et al.
2018; Christ et al.
2017; Crick and Crick
2019; Dorn et al.
2016; Garri
2021; Jakobsen
2020; Kwon et al.
2020; Monticelli
2018; Peng et al.
2018; Raza-Ullah
2020). From the perspective of strategic inter-organizational relationships (Amata et al.
2022; Bengtsson et al.
2020), coopetition is acknowledged as “
a dynamic and paradoxical relationship, which arises when two companies cooperate in some areas (such as strategic alliances), but simultaneously compete in other areas” (Bengtsson and Kock
2000: 411). So far, it has been recognized as an emergent or purposeful strategy (Chin et al.
2008; Dorn et al.
2016; Le Roy and Czakon
2016), a strategy as practice (Darb and Knott
2022), or a strategizing process (Le Roy et al.
2019; Lundgren-Henriksson and Kock
2016) leading to firm performance (Chatterjee et al.
2023; Crick and Crick
2020;
2023; Vlaisavljevic et al.
2022) or even superior firm performance (Garri
2021; Le Roy and Czakon
2016; Raza-Ullah and Kostis
2020) based on syncretic coopetition rent and resulting from coopetition capabilities (Bengtsson et al.
2016; Rai et al.
2022).
Coopetition generates different outcomes (Le Roy and Czakon
2016) which can be aggregated into four general categories (Bengtsson and Raza-Ullah
2016): innovation-based, knowledge-related, firm performance, and relational outputs. The positive implications of coopetition may explain its rapid popularization (Bouncken et al.
2015; Devece et al.
2019; Dorn et al.
2016; Gast et al.
2015; Köseoğlu et al.
2019). It should be noted, however, that the literature is dominated by a focus on the performance-related effects of coopetition (Meena et al.
2023), as performance is acknowledged as the most important outcome of coopetition (Bouncken et al.
2023; Crick
2019; Dorn et al.
2016). However, despite the great popularity of performance-related results in coopetition research (Zou et al.
2023), there are still many inconsistencies, cognitive contradictions and even logical misunderstandings in the field.
According to the existing stock of knowledge, the performance-related outcomes of coopetition are seen as different types of functional performance (for instance financial or market performance), as a direct proxy for firm performance, or as coopetition performance (CP) resulting purely from coopetitive relationships. In the literature, it quite often remains unclear which approach is adopted. Moreover, these approaches are frequently mixed in a single study.
Chronologically first and still the most frequently used, CP is considered through the functional approach, in which it is seen through the outcomes generated in a specific functional area, for example, innovation performance (e.g., Gnyawali and Park
2009; Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
2009), financial performance (Bouncken et al.
2023; Monticelli et al.
2018; Peng et al.
2018), social performance (Bouncken et al.
2023), or market performance (Le Roy and Czakon
2016; Ritala
2009;
2012). The second approach to CP is the paradoxically cooperative approach that refers to the cooperation-based operationalization of competition performance focusing on the benefits shared within coopeting partners (Ghobadi and D’Ambra
2012; Jakobsen
2020), which at the same time intensively cooperate and compete (Crick
2019). The third approach concentrates on the multilateral benefits gained from coopetitive partnerships (Bengtsson and Kock
2000; Peng et al.
2018). This approach may be labelled as relational as the benefits through which CP is considered are narrowed down to those gained through balanced coopetitive relationships among partners (Raza-Ullah
2021). The last approach to CP is temporal and is viewed through the lens of coopetition success, where firm success is a multi-faceted construct including short- and long-term achievements (Raza-Ullah
2020; Riccardi et al.
2022).
Although coopetition outcomes and the performance of coopetitors are generating growing research interest, notable gaps exist in the literature. Firstly, a joint, comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to conceptualizing and operationalizing coopetition performance is lacking. Indeed, there is limited knowledge of both successful coopetition (Garri
2021) and coopetition performance (Bengtsson et al.
2016; Meena et al.
2023), while understanding what factors contribute to successful outcomes in coopetition scenarios is essential. In particular, we need a better understanding of coopetition outcomes (Bouncken et al.
2015; Czakon et al.
2020b; Dorn et al.
2016), including those gained in a long-term perspective (Czakon et al.
2020a; Ricciardi et al.
2022).
Also, there is notable research fragmentation and methodological shortcomings as—so far—researchers have focused on loosely related themes, while a more detailed focus on CP is needed (Garri
2021). Moreover, there is a deficit of proposals on operationalizing and measuring coopetition performance (Crick
2019; Rai
2016; Ritala
2012; Narayan and Tidström
2020). Finally, there is no consensus on the types of reliable and applicable measuring proxies for CP, as some scholars use proxies linked with alliance success (Rai et al.
2022) or coopetition per se (Crick and Crick
2019; Czakon et al.
2020a). It is our conviction that these shortcomings are detrimental to advancing coopetition theory, and prevent the making of meaningful comparisons and generalizations, as mentioned by various coopetition scholars (e.g., Bengtsson and Raza-Ullah
2016; Bouncken et al.
2015; Crick
2019; Czakon et al.
2014; Gnyawali and Charleton
2018; Gnyawali and Song
2016; Gelei and Dobos
2023).
Beyond the cognitive gaps identified above, an additional justification for directing our attention toward CP lies in its preeminent status within coopetition literature. As Meena and colleagues (
2023) show in their systematic literature review (SLR), there are six areas of investigation within the coopetition field. Among them are two related to performance—(1) the outcomes of coopetition on firms, and (2) coopetition leading to innovation performance. Additionally, bibliometric analyses evidence that among the six building blocks of the citation network within the coopetition field are those focusing on coopetition outputs (Köseoğlu et al.
2019)—i.e., innovation with coopetition. Also, Walley (
2007) identifies coopetition and performance among eight themes in the coopetition field, while Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino (
2017) place the recognition of successful coopetition among three streams of research in the tourism management context, and coopetition outcomes are identified among five research dimensions by Gernsheimer and colleagues (
2021). Therefore, in our paper, we directly address a research question posed as a result of an SLR carried out by Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino (
2017: 10), namely, “
How (should)
we measure the performance generated by coopetition?” Specifically, we aim to develop an operationalization framework for coopetition performance.
To achieve the above goal, a two-step research process was conducted. Firstly, following a domain-based approach, we carried out a meta-systematic review of existing SLRs (Kraus et al.
2022; Paul et al.
2021) on coopetition published to date. In particular, we explored the reviews in order to determine whether and how CP was operationalized and measured. Secondly, field research was conducted to discuss, revise and supplement the SLR findings. This part of our research inquiry was implemented using three online focus group interviews (FGIs) with researchers experienced in the coopetition phenomenon.
As a result of our investigation, this paper contributes to coopetition literature by developing a coopetition performance definition and an operationalization framework covering five operationalization recommendations. Conceptually, this work offers an understanding of coopetition performance as a distinct, multi-dimensional and dynamic type of performance. From an operational and methodological perspective, our research points to the importance of considering both relational and temporal measures of CP covering short- and long-term perspectives, but at the same time recommends a multi-item, subjective and situational approach to CP measurement.
5 Discussion
It is acknowledged that coopetition impacts performance (Gernsheimer et al.
2021; Meena et al.
2023). However, the question remains unanswered as to the proper understanding and operationalization of coopetition performance (Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino
2017). Indeed, although performance remains one of the most often explored issues in coopetition studies (Gernsheimer et al.
2021; Köseoğlu et al.
2019), the focus is usually placed mainly on coopetition’s impacts on firm performance (e.g., Crick
2019; Dorn et. al.
2016; Estrada and Dong
2020), or its understanding is equated with knowledge of a wide range of functional performances, or was not explained at all (Gast et al.
2015; Kraus et al.
2019; Le Roy and Czakon
2016). Furthermore, empirical works specifically focusing on coopetition performance are few in number, and there are methodological and measurement limitations (Crick and Crick
2019).
At the same time, it is more frequently highlighted that further development of the coopetition concept requires development of sound operationalizations and valid measurements of coopetition-related constructs (Gnyawali and Song
2016; Johansson et al.
2019; Rai et al.
2022; Gelei and Dobos
2023), including also the commonly acknowledged operationalization of CP (e.g., Raza-Ullah
2020;
2021; Raza-Ullah and Kostis
2021; Ricciardi et al.
2022). Therefore, our research investigated how we should operationally perceive CP
.
The integration of the findings from the FGIs and the results from the SLR shows that when measuring CP it would be beneficial to use operationalization that covers the relational and result-based dimension of coopetition outcomes, as well as the dimension that considers the passing of time.
Supporting methodological calls to use already existing scales (Crick and Crick
2019; Czakon et al.
2020a; Klimas et al.
2022), we propose using the scale developed by Raza-Ullah and Kostis (
2020), however, in a modified version. On the one hand, we found evidence justifying extending the pool of six originally considered coopetition results to nine. On the other hand, among our interviewees, we found strong support for assessing performance in different time frames, as proposed by Ricciardi and colleagues (
2022). Four specific recommendations frame the integrative operationalization emerging from our investigation.
Recommendation no. 1: Coopetition performance measured as strategic-level performance possibly leading to functional-level performances, but not considered part of them.
Although CP can—depending on its specific type, aims and level—lead to functional-level performances (including innovation, market, financial, knowledge performance, etc.), it should be fully distinguished as it results directly from coopetition strategy. On the one hand, CP is not considered at the functional level of firm strategies, but rather at the business or corporate level (Czakon et al.
2020b; Ritala
2012). On the other hand, it results from syncretic coopetition capability (Bengtsson et al.
2020; Rai et al.
2022) which may, but does not have to, be linked with innovation strategy, market strategy, knowledge strategy, etc. ‘
When developing a measurement tool following the functional approaches one may think about the manager who needs to measure coopetition performance, who needs to know what part of firm performance was generated because of coopetition and what part resulted from other activities’ [FG2; O2].
Supporting conceptual claims, our study shows that the CP operationalization framework cannot be seen as synonymous with function-level performances such as market, financial, customer, marketing or innovation performance (Crick
2020; Johansson et al.
2019; Rai
2016; Rai et al.
2022; Xie et al.
2023). These should be seen as a wide range of predefined performance-related outcomes of coopetition (Darbi and Knott
2022; Klimas et al.
2023; Raza-Ullah
2020;
2021), not coopetition performance per se or even proxies for CP. Conversely, coopetition performance seems to be a different, additional, syncretic and distinct component of firm performance that is achievable by organizations adopting coopetition strategies. Therefore, it directly impacts firm performance. As our interlocutors said, ‘a
firm involved in coopetition generates coopetition performance and generates firm performance (ref. considered separately)
as well’ [FG2; O2]. Another interviewee [FG2; O1] suggested that there are two different stories, one about organizations exploiting relational rent, or even coopetition rent, and the second about organizations which do not exploit such rent, with the performances of the two basically based on different pillars.
Further, as CP results from coopetition strategy adoption and execution, it should be seen at a strategic, not functional, level. It should be noted, however, that besides a direct effect there is also an indirect effect exerted by CP on firm performance (Feela
2020) via its direct impact on functional performances such as market, innovation or financial performance (Bendig et al.
2018; Crick
2020; Crick et al.
2021). Additionally, our FGIs have shown that the functional approach is not appropriate as the entire scope of performance (e.g. innovation, market, financial) does not result from coopetition strategy adoption. Therefore, if CP were reduced to a functional level and equated with the functional dimensions of performance, then the level measured would not reflect reality, i.e. it would be overestimated as it would also include outcomes not related to coopetition – ‘
With the functional approach it is multidimensional, there is market, financial, innovation, (…) all these are dimensions of firm performance. When the firm executes a coopetition strategy, it is not the case that all these dimensions result from coopetition, there are impacts made by other decisions and strategies, functional strategies to the greatest extent’ [FG2; O2].
Recommendation no. 2: Coopetition performance should be measured as resulting from simultaneous cooperation and competition (i.e. from coopetition), and not measured through these two in themselves.
CP results from coopetition, i.e., simultaneous cooperation and competition (Bengtsson and Kock
2000). This means that it takes one of the forms implied by coopetition, and as such should not be measured in the same way as coopetition (e.g., Bouncken and Friedrich
2012; Crick
2020; Yang and Zhang
2022). It should be noted that CP underlies coopetition-based rent as it is more than the simple sum of competitive advantage and collaborative rents (Czakon et al.
2014; Lado
1997). It is highlighted that it is not enough to rely on alliance capability to make a coopetition strategy successful, instead a distinct coopetition capability is needed (Bengtsson et al.
2020).
Coopetition covers two paradoxical facets simultaneously (Bengtsson and Kock
2000): cooperation and competition (Baruch et al.
2012; Bengtsson et al.
2020; Raza-Ullah
2020;
2021). Indeed, it is acknowledged that when adopted properly, coopetition strategy covers two sub-strategies—cooperative and competitive (Le Roy and Czakon
2016), and only with such a two-sided approach to a relational business-to-business strategy can it lead to superior performance (Bengtsson and Raza-Ullah
2016; Garri
2021; Klimas and Czakon
2018). This suggests that the cooperative and competitive facets of coopetition should be covered by the conceptualization of coopetition, not coopetition performance seen as a result of coopetition. It is claimed that ‘
to accurately measure coopetition activities (note—not the results of such activities),
academics must establish a tool that captures the propensity of these cooperative and competitive behaviors’ (Crick and Crick
2020: 209). Indeed, such an approach to the operationalization of coopetition using a multi-item and two-sided approach (covering cooperation and competition-related questions) was developed by Bouncken and Friedrich (
2012) and used later on, for instance, by Hameed and Naveed (
2019) also in a slightly expanded version (e.g., Bouncken and Kraus
2013; Crick
2020; Yang and Zhang
2022). Given the above, the issue of the dual face of coopetition and its paradoxical nature is not relevant at the stage of CP measurement because this aspect is ensured at the stage of coopetition establishment (Bouncken and Kraus
2013; Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino
2017)—‘
when talking about coopetition performance, it is no longer relevant to separate the two (ref. to cooperation and competition); at this stage they are inseparable’ [FG2; O1]—as one of our interviewees claimed.
Recommendation no. 3: Coopetition performance measured as a peculiar performance type concerning coopetitors only.
Coopetition-based performance should always be considered in a coopetitive
development setting (Johansson et al.
2019), seen as a building block of firm performance specific for organizations implementing coopetition strategy (Rai et al.
2022; Raza-Ullah
2020;
2021; Raza-Ullah and Kostis
2020) and dependent on coopetition-specific goals (Le Roy and Czakon
2016), coopetition experience (Estrada and Dong
2020; Rai et al.
2022) and coopetition capability (Bengtsson et al.
2020; Raza-Ullah et al.
2019). Following the literature, but also using supportive findings from our field research (Table
3 and
4), we claim that CP can be measured using the scale developed by Raza-Ullah and Kostis (
2020). This approach was discussed as the most appropriate of those under consideration (Fig.
1), and it generated the most positive responses. The interviewees spent the majority of the time commenting on this particular approach, and the majority of detailed comments and remarks referred to it and its particular sub-components. One can summarize that in the light of our FGIs ‘
I like this green one (the relational approach was market in green on the Miro board—see Figs.
1 and
2)
the best in general’ [FG2; O2].
Table 4
Summary of online focus group findings
FG1 | Market results | Cooperation-related performance | Results achievable only through coopetition | Short and long period of results verification |
Market share | Cooperation addressing very specific goals |
Access to new resources and optimalization of own resource allocation and exploitation |
New market creation & entering new market | Efficiency in mission execution |
Competition-related performance |
Improved competitive advantage |
Maximization of internal efficiency and performance |
Financial results | Higher competitiveness |
Improved image, reputation | Time-dependent goals including strategic, tactical and operational |
Transaction cost reduction | Social legitimization, trust |
Knowledge-related results |
Know-how |
Innovation-related results | Broadening customer base |
New technologies, infrastructure |
FG2 | The risk of an instrumental and thoughtless approach to measurement | Not to separate cooperation and competition | Thematic results | Time perspective |
Effectiveness | Short-term outcomes |
| Long-term outcomes |
Efficiency |
Not always relevant |
FG3 | Financial performance as a final functional performance resulting from innovation, knowledge, market outcomes | Distinguishing specificity of cooperation under simultaneous competition | The core of firm performance of coopetitors | Results are changeable and differ in particular phases of coopetition life cycle |
Expected and unexpected results |
Difference in relation to non-competitive cooperation | Positive and negative results | Dynamic approach |
Measurable and unmeasurable results | Three perspectives simultaneously: short-term, long-term and real-time perspective |
Competitiveness in relation to non-coopeting competitors |
Factor analysis of relevant functional types of the structure of coopetition performance |
Conclusion | Not recommended in research on coopetition performance in future: | Not recommended in research on coopetition performance in future: | Recommended in research on coopetition performance in future: | Recommended in research on coopetition performance in future: |
Functional performances may be linked with coopetition performance, e.g. may result from or be driven by coopetition performance | Two-sided approach determines coopetition phenomenon thus is considered when measuring coopetition not its effects |
Dynamic view and measurement of coopetition performance components |
Coopetition performance as results and outcomes specific for coopetitors only |
Operationalization frames | #1 Coopetition performance measured as strategic-level performance possibly leading to functional-level performances, not reduced to them | #2 Coopetition performance measured as resulting from simultaneous cooperation and competition (i.e. from coopetition), not measured through these two | #3 Coopetition performance measured as a peculiar performance type concerning coopetitors only | #4 Coopetition performance operationalized as providing results on a dynamic and continuous basis |
Nonetheless, to make the operationalization more comprehensive, we decided to expand the original scale using newly added items focused on competitiveness, and negative and unexpected results. CP is understood through coopetition-specific effects (Bouncken and Friedrich
2012; Rai et al.
2022). However, one should note that these results should cover both positive results gained from successful coopetition (Raza-Ullah
2020; Ricciardi et al.
2022), as well as negative ones obtained when coopetition fails (Bengtsson et al.
2020; Crick
2020). Moreover, CP is seen as specific for organizations adopting coopetition strategy. Given that coopetition strategy may be adopted as a purposeful strategy or be used as an emergent approach based on a flexible strategizing process (Czakon et al.
2014; Le Roy et al.
2019), it seems reasoned to consider not only the expected results but the unexpected ones as well, as claimed by our interlocutors—‘
(…) I agree with the previous speakers that it would be necessary to investigate both the expected and the unexpected… That's really, that's a great idea, indeed!’ [FG3; O1].
Recommendation no. 4: Coopetition performance operationalized as providing results on a dynamic and continuous basis.
The literature postulates coopetition as dynamic and changeable over time (Garri
2021), also in terms of specific features characterizing coopetition in a particular moment/period (Bacon et al.
2020), as well as generated results (Crick and Crick
2021; Ricciardi et al.
2022). ‘
That's what I've been wondering from the very beginning, it's absolutely (important), I also share this issue of including it in the measurement (…) well I wouldn't see such a static study as sufficient here. (…) what I would certainly add here is that the time aspect in this coopetition performance is very important. (…)’ [FG3; O2]. Therefore, due to the dynamic and changeable nature of coopetition phenomena (Devece et al.
2019; Köseoğlu et al.
2019; Yadav et al.
2022), it is highly necessary to consider the time perspective as the performance of a coopetitive relationship is sensitive to passing time, the coopetition phase, or the maturity of the relationship (Klimas et al.
2023). Indeed, as one of our interviewees claimed, ‘
there are short-term outcomes and there are long-term outcomes. And it could be that in the short term I get a positive effect because my revenues grow, but in the long term it’s the competitor who grows more’ [FG2; O1].
Summing up, based on both the desk research conducted using SLR and the field research conducted using FGIs, we claim that it is reasoned to frame the operationalization of coopetition performance through the lenses of its widely understood results considered through the dynamic view. In particular, we suggest that CP (recommendation #1) should be measured as strategic-level performance possibly leading to functional-level performances, wherein it should not be considered part of them, and (recommendation #2) it should be measured as resulting from simultaneous cooperation and competition (i.e. from coopetition), wherein it should not be measured through these two. At the same time, we argue that it is reasoned to consider CP as a distinct and peculiar type of performance that is consistently recognized in both long- and short-term perspectives. Therefore, we also suggest that CP (recommendation #3) should be measured as a peculiar performance type concerning coopetitors only, wherein it should not be measured as outcomes not related to coopetition, and (recommendation #4) it should be measured in a way that covers results generated on a dynamic and continuous basis, but should not be measured in a static (either short- or long-term) view.
The results support recent literature suggesting that it is not only short-term effects (Czakon et al.
2020a; Rusko et al.
2016) or long-term implications (Greven et al.
2022) that are relevant, as coopetition is considered as a long-term and dynamic phenomenon, and thus both time perspectives should be considered simultaneously (Kylanen and Mariani
2012; Ricciardi et al.
2022). Given the above, we claim that taking a time perspective is necessary when measuring coopetition performance, for instance, using the approach offered by Ricciardi and colleagues (
2022). Overall, a comprehensive understanding of CP requires a dynamic approach and ‘
considering both time perspectives has huge potential in terms of providing a dynamic, not a static picture’ [FG2; O1], thus resulting in better managerial decisions. This is because keeping an appropriate balance between competition and cooperation reflects the dynamic nature of the coopetition phenomenon (Corbo et al.
2023; Séran et al.
2023), while managing this balance is one of the main streams in coopetition research (Köseoğlu et al.
2019).
Nonetheless, besides the above recommendations, when combined with methodological recommendations made in coopetition (but also in strategic management) literature, our findings from the SLR and some side comments made by our interlocutors during the FGIs, prompted us to make a further fifth recommendation of a slightly more measurement-related nature.
Recommendation no. 5: A multi-item, subjective and situational approach is needed when measuring coopetition performance.
CP appears to be complex and multidimensional (Chen et al.
2021; Crick
2019; Xie et al.
2023). Therefore, a multi-item approach recommended in research on management-related constructs (Ramanujam et al.
1986) is reasoned for its comprehensive operationalization. This remains in line with claims made in other research focused on sound operationalization of coopetition-related constructs, stating that multidimensionality and a multi-approach to operationalization are needed due to the complex (Chen et al.
2021; Crick and Crick
2021), paradoxical (Bengtsson et al.
2020; Raza-Ullah
2020;
2021), and slightly abstract nature of coopetition per se (Crick and Crick
2019). Therefore, the multi-item approach presented in Table
5, together with a solid recommendation for considering the nine coopetition-related outcomes in both short- and long-term perspectives, is recommended for future research on CP.
Table 5
Operationalization framework for coopetition performance
… it produces the expected results and meets its milestones | Raza-Ullah and Kostis 2020 | Bouncken and Friedrich 2012; Johansson et al. 2019 | We can measure what the coopetition gave us, what I achieved, what results I wouldn't have been able to achieve on my own from my perspective [FG1; O1] |
… it generates revenue or customer references that meet or exceed expectations | Lindström and Polsa 2016; Daidj and Egert 2018 | Increasing efficiency through the implementation of cooperation (…) there is an increase in the overall dynamic of activities in the implementation of the mission [FG1; O2] |
… it enables a high-quality solution based on an integration of both firms’ technologies, resources, and/or expertise | | In general, the green approach (ref. measurement approach developed by Raza-Ullah and Kostis ( 2020)) was agreed as the best one [FG2; O2] |
… it generates new customers, products, or projects | | I would like to draw attention to the perspective of the customer, the broadly understood customer. (…) maybe (ref. due to coopetition) we are attracting the interest of our coopetitor's target group [FG1; O2] |
… it adds to our core competence and/or competitive advantage | Raza-Ullah and Kostis 2020 | Osarenkhoe 2010; Della Corte and Sciarelli 2012; Le Roy and Fernandez 2019 | Certain opportunities or certain pathways that were previously inaccessible are opening up [FG1; O3] |
… it reduces time to market for launching products, services, or solutions | | There is a time reduction at many levels [FG2; O1] |
… it increases competitiveness | NI | Della Corte and Sciarelli 2012; Bouncken et al. 2015; Chim-Miki and Batista-Canino 2017; Crick and Crick 2020 | (ref. to coopetition bringing) Internal strength, we strengthen ourselves and thus build our competitiveness. In fact, we are perhaps also creating new competitive factors of our own [FG1; O2] This is because we and the partner are more competitive in the market thanks to our coopetition [FG3; O2] |
… it generates unexpected, positive results | NI | NI | It is always the case that there are some results, some outcomes that we expect, and there is always something that emerges from such coopetition [FG3; O2] |
… it also generates unexpected negative results | NI | | (ref. to suggestion that it would be good) to show here somewhere these possibly dark sides of this cooperation. [FG3; O3] Definitely! [FG3; O2] That’s right [FG3; O1] |
Following the most popular approach used so far in research on CP (e.g., Raza-Ullah
2020;
2021; Raza-Ullah and Kostis
2020), but also in studies on performance in the coopetition context (e.g., Albort-Morant et al.
2018; Crick and Crick
2021; Rai
2016; Rai et al.
2022), we see it as reasoned to use a Likert-type scale when measuring coopetition performance. In particular, we recommend using a 7-point scale as this has to date been used more frequently, which may be of importance in the case of comparative investigations.