Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Introduction Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Coopetition and Co-innovation: Do Manufacturing and Service Providers Behave Differently?

Authors : Dina Pereira, João Leitão, Tessaleno Devezas

Published in: Industry 4.0

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Previous studies on coopetition considered the concept as a mix of cooperation and competition among firms, oriented towards producing innovation and generating net value added or economic benefit. The importance of studying the determinants of firms’ innovative behaviour in order to produce an insightful analysis of their patent intensity behaviour based on those coopetition relationships has also warranted increasing attention by several entrepreneurship scholars. This paper tackles the issue in an innovative way, by making use of firms’ behaviour in generating co-innovative products and services to reveal their innovative performance and the dynamics of coopetition targeted at open innovation. Thus, we analyse the determinant factors of firms; capacity to generate co-innovations, which is influenced by the role played by policies oriented to driving innovations among firms, cooperation with scientific stakeholders and development of the capacity to generate and transfer new products. For this purpose, we use a dataset of 3682 manufacturing firms and 1221 service firms that participated in the European Community Innovation Survey (CIS), 2008. A probit analysis is conducted separately for manufacturing and service firms and, within each sector, according to firms’ category of technological intensity. The results reveal the significant influence of manufacturing and service firms’ capacity to generate co-innovative products and services, such as coopetition arrangements between competing firms and other R&D stakeholders, and also firms’ capacity to introduce innovations to the market. Furthermore, this study also reveals that for service firms the effects of introducing process innovations inside the firm and the existence of internal R&D activities are of major significance for creating a capacity to generate co-innovations.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Determinants and Interdependence of Firm Entry, Exit and Mobility
Literature
Abernathy, W., & Clark, K. (1985). Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3–22.CrossRef
Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
Amburgey, T., & Rao, H. (1996). Organizational ecology: Past, present and future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1265–1286.CrossRef
Aoki, R., & Schiff, A. (2008). Promoting access to intellectual property: Patent pools, copyright collectives and clearinghouses. R&D Management, 38, 189–204.CrossRef
Archambault, E. (2002). Methods for using patents in cross-country comparisons. Scientometrics, 54(1), 15–30.CrossRef
Archibugi, D. (2001). Pavitt’s taxonomy sixteen years on: A review article. Economic Innovation and New Technology, 10, 415–425.CrossRef
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 24, 91–114.CrossRef
Arthur, W. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36(2), 274–287.CrossRef
Bagshaw, M., & Bagshaw, C. (2001). Co-opetition applied to training—A case study. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(4/5), 175–177.CrossRef
Belderbos, R., M., C., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477–1492.CrossRef
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks—To cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411–426.CrossRef
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2003). Tension in co-opetition. Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference, May 28–31, Washington, DC.
Bergek, A., & Bruzelius, M. (2010). Are patents with multiple inventors from different countries a good indicator of international R&D collaboration? The case of ABB. Research Policy, 39, 1321–1334.CrossRef
Bessen, J., & Maskin, E. (2009). Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 40(4 (Winter)), 611–635.CrossRef
Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., & Seppanen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—Balancing trust and contracting. Technovation, 25, 497–504.CrossRef
Braczyk, H., & Cooke, P. (1998). Heidenreich, Regional Innovation Systems. London: UCL Press.
Brandenburger, A. M. & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. Currency, Doubleday, New York.
Breitzman, A., & Mogee, M. (2002). The many applications of patent analysis. Journal of Information Science, 28(3), 187–205.CrossRef
Carayol, N., & Roux, P. (2007). The strategic formation of intra-individual collaboration networks. Evidence form co-invention patterns. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 87/88, 275–301.CrossRef
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52, 68–82.CrossRef
Chen, Y., & Chang, K. (2009). Using neural network to analyse the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies. Scientometrics, 80(3), 637–655.CrossRef
Chen, Y., & Chang, K. (2010a). The nonlinear nature of the relationships between the patent traits and corporate performance. Scientometrics, 82(1), 201–210.CrossRef
Chen, Y., & Chang, K. (2010b). The relationship between a firm’s patent quality and its market value—The case of US pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(1), 20–33.CrossRef
Chen, Y., & Chang, K. (2010c). Analyzing the nonlinear effects of firm size, profitability and employee productivity on patent citations of the US pharmaceutical companies by using artificial neural network. Scientometrics, 82(1), 75–82.CrossRef
Chen, Y., & Chen, B. (2011). Utilizing patent analysis to explore the cooperative competition relationship of the two LED companies: Nichia and Osram. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 294–302.CrossRef
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Boston.
Chidamber, S., & Kon, H. (1994). A research retrospective of innovation inception and success: The technology-push, demand-pull question. International Journal of Technology Management, 9(1), 94–112.
Chien, T., & Peng, T. (2005). Competition and cooperation intensity in a network—A case study in Tawain simulator industry. Journal of American Academy Business, 7, 150–155.
Cockburn, I., & Henderson, R. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157–183.CrossRef
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.CrossRef
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1, Special Issue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation, March, 128–152.
Cohen, W., & Walsh, J. (2001). R&D spillovers, appropriability and R&D intensity: A survey based approach, the economical evaluation of technological change, June 15–16 1998, Georgetown University Conference Center Washington DC, Editor R. Spivack.
Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper, No. 7552.
Conceição, P., & Heitor, M. (2007, January). Diversity and integration of science and technology policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(1), 1–17.CrossRef
Cooke, P., Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.CrossRef
Cooke, P., Boekholt, P., & Tödtling, F. (2000). The governance of innovation in Europe: Regional perspectives on global competitiveness. London: Pinter.
Dagnino, G., & Rocco, E. (2009). Coopetition strategy: Theory, experiments and cases. New York: Routledge.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.
Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 99–126.CrossRef
Ernst, H. (1998). Industrial research as a source of important patents. Research Policy, 27, 1–15.CrossRef
Ernst, H. (1999). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering Technological Management, 15, 279–308.CrossRef
Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25, 233–242.CrossRef
Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38, 96–105.CrossRef
Ferrão, M. (2003). Introdução aos modelos de regressão multinível em educação. Campinas: Komedi.
Fjelstad, A. D., Becerra, M., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Strategic action in network industries: An empirical analysis of the European mobile phone industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20, 173–196.CrossRef
Flanagan, K., Kieron, E., & Laranja, M. (2011, June). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.CrossRef
Frankel, M. (1955, June). Obsolescence and technological change in a maturing economy. The American Economic Review, 45(3), 296–319.
Gambardella, A. (1992). Competitive advantages from in-house basic research. Research Policy, 21, 391–407.CrossRef
Garraffo, F. (2002). Types of coopetition to manage emerging technologies. 2nd Annual Conference, Innovative Research in Management, Stockholm, Sweden.
George, G., & Prabhu, G. (2003). Developmental financial institutions as technology policy instruments: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Research Policy, 32, 89–108.CrossRef
Godinho, M. (2003) Inovação: Conceitos e Perspectivas Fundamentais. In M. Rodrigues, A. Neves, & M. Godinho (Orgs.), Para uma Política de Inovação em Portugal, Dom Quixote, Lisboa: Biblioteca de Economia & Empresa, 29–51.
Gomes-Casseres, B. (1996). The alliance revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, 25(4), 501–522.CrossRef
Griliches, Z., Hall, B., & Pakes, A. (1991). R&D, patents and market value revisited: Is there a second (technological opportunity) factor? Economic Innovation New Technology, 1(3), 183–201.CrossRef
Grindley, P., & Teece, D. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39, 8–41.CrossRef
Grupp, H., & Schmooch, U. (1999). Patent statistics in the age of globalization: New legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Research Policy, 28, 377–396.CrossRef
Harbison, K., & Pekar, P. (1998). Smart alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hatzichronoglou, T. (1997). Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. OECD STI Working Paper Series No. 1997/2, Paris.
Heitor, M., & Bravo, M. (2010, February). Portugal at the crossroads of change, facing the shock of the new: People, knowledge and ideas fostering the social fabric to facilitate the concentration of knowledge integrated communities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 218–247.CrossRef
Hicks, J. (1932). The theory of wages. London: MacMillan.
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–66.
Jong, J., & Marsili, O. (2006). The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy, 35, 213–229.CrossRef
Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30, 791–804.CrossRef
Kleinknecht, A. (1990, August). Demand and innovation: Schmookler re-examined. Research Policy, 19(4), 387–394.CrossRef
Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycle. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 145–181.CrossRef
Klevorick, A. K. (1995). On the sources and significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24(2), 185–205.CrossRef
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. In Press, Corrected Proof.
Lai, K., Su, F., Weng, C., & Chen, C. (2007). Co-opetition strategy from the patent analysis perspective: The case of the stent market. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 4(02), 137–153.CrossRef
Laranja, M. (2008, January). The development of technology infrastructure in Portugal and the need to pull innovation using proactive intermediation policies. Technovation, 29(1), 23–34.CrossRef
Lee, S., Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2009). An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation, 29, 481–497.CrossRef
Leitão, J., & Baptista, R. (2009). Public policies for fostering entrepreneurship: A European perspective. London, New York: Springer.
Li, X. (2011). Sources of external technology, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability in Chinese state-owned high-tech enterprises. World Development, 39(7), 1240–1248.CrossRef
Lundvall, B.-A. (1985). Product innovation and user-producer interaction. Industrial Research, No. 31, Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Chap. 17 (pp. 349–369). London: Pinter.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
Lundvall, B.-A. (2007). National innovation systems—Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 95–119.CrossRef
Luo, Y. (2004). Coopetition in international business. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Luo, X., & Slotegraaf, R. (2006). Cross-functional coopetition: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67–80.CrossRef
Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A., & Tse, D. K. (2007). Working with rivals: The impact of competitor alliances in financial performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 73–83.CrossRef
Ma, Z., & Lee, Y. (2008). Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980–2005. Technovation, 28(6), 379–390.CrossRef
Macdonald, S. (2004). When means become ends: Considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation. Information Economics and Policy, 16(1), 135–158.CrossRef
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.). London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRef
McGahan, A. (2004). How industries evolve: Principles for achieving and sustaining superior performance. Boston. MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Mogee, M. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research Technology Management, 34(4), 43–49.
Mowery, D. (1983). The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing 1900–1940. Explorations in Economic History, 20(4), 351–374.CrossRef
Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some empirical studies. Research Policy, 8(2), 102–153.CrossRef
Nelson, R. (1993). National systems of innovation: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6(1), 36–76.CrossRef
Nemet, G. (2009). Demand pull, technology push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Research Policy, 38(5), 700–709.CrossRef
Nieto, M., & Santamaria, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6–7), 367–377.CrossRef
Padula, G., & Dagnino, G. (2007). Untangling the rise of coopetition. International Studies and Management & Organization, 37(2), 32–52.CrossRef
Park, S., & Russo, M. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42(6), 875–890.CrossRef
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technological change: Towards a taxonomy and theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.CrossRef
Pavitt, K. (1998). Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: What Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn’t. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 433–452.CrossRef
Peneder, M. (2002). Intangible investment and human resources. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1), 107–134.CrossRef
Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: A panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation, 24(12), 927–938.CrossRef
Rammer, C. (2002). Patente Und Marken Als Schutzmechanismen Für Innovationen. Studien Zum Deutschen Innovationssystem, 11-2003, Mannheim.
Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What’s in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-related coopetition. Technovation, 29(12), 819–828.CrossRef
Rosenberg, N. (1974). Science, invention and economic growth. The Economic Journal, 84(333), 90–108.CrossRef
Rosenberg, N. (1976). The direction of technological change: Inducement mechanisms and focusing devices. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 18, 1–24.CrossRef
Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box: Technology, economics and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Rosenberg, N., & Birdzell Jr., L. E. (1990). Science, technology and the Western miracle. Scientific American, 263(5), 42–54.CrossRef
Rothaermel, F., & Alexandre, M. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science Archive, 20(4), 759–780.CrossRef
Rothwell, W. (2002). Putting success into your succession planning. Journal of Business Strategy, 23(3), 32–37.CrossRef
Rusko, R. (2011). Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 311–320.CrossRef
Scherer, F. (1982). Inter-industry technology flows and productivity growth. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), 627–634.CrossRef
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef
Schmookler, J. (1979). Fuentes económicas de la actividad inventiva. In N. Rosenberg (org.). Economía del cambio tecnológico. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 107–125.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Economic Studies.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Seung, P., & Russo, M. (1996). When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42(6), 875–890.CrossRef
Seymour, R. (2008). Platinum group metals patent analysis and mapping. Platinum Metals Review, 52(4), 231–240.CrossRef
Silva, M., & Leitão, J. (2009a). Reinforcing the entrepreneurial innovation capacity of industrial SMEs with networks. In J. Leitão & R. Baptista (Eds.), Public policies for fostering entrepreneurship: A European perspective. London, New York: Springer.
Silva, M., & Leitão, J. (2009b). Cooperation in innovation practices among firms in Portugal: Do external partners stimulate innovative advances? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 7(4), 391–404.CrossRef
Simon, H. (1973). Does scientific discovery have a logic? Philosophy of Science, 40, 471–480.CrossRef
Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K. (2005). Measuring innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 148–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38.CrossRef
Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967.CrossRef
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.CrossRef
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organization, competition and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.CrossRef
Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRef
Utterback, J., & Abernathy, W. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–656.CrossRef
Vasudeva, G., & Anand, J. (2011). Unpacking absorptive capacity: A study of knowledge utilization from alliance portfolio. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 611–623.CrossRef
Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.CrossRef
Walley, K. (2007). Coopetition—An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(2), 11–31.CrossRef
Wang, X. (2010). Worldwide patent analysis and mapping of combine harvester innovation. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(24), 3493–3499.
Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
Metadata
Title
Coopetition and Co-innovation: Do Manufacturing and Service Providers Behave Differently?
Authors
Dina Pereira
João Leitão
Tessaleno Devezas
Copyright Year
2017
Book
Industry 4.0

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49603-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-49604-7

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49604-7_20