=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1674/iStar16_pp1-6
|storemode=property
|title=Coopetition with Frenemies: Towards Modeling of Simultaneous Cooperation and Competition
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1674/iStar16_pp1-6.pdf
|volume=Vol-1674
|authors=Vik Pant,Eric Yu
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/istar/PantY16
}}
==Coopetition with Frenemies: Towards Modeling of Simultaneous Cooperation and Competition==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1674/iStar16_pp1-6.pdf
Coopetition with frenemies: Towards modeling of
simultaneous cooperation and competition
Vik Pant1 and Eric Yu1, 2
1Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
vik.pant@mail.utoronto.ca
eric.yu@utoronto.ca
Abstract. Actor and goal modeling frameworks are concerned with the analysis
of social phenomena and a number of notations and techniques have been pro-
posed for depicting social behaviors. However, coopetition, which is a specific
type of social interaction, has not been explored in the actor and goal modeling
literatures. Coopetition, which refers to simultaneous cooperation and competi-
tion, has been studied extensively in the social sciences where conceptual theo-
rizing and empirical fieldwork have established it as a prominent field of re-
search. It is regularly observed in dealings between many kinds of organizations
and institutions, such as businesses and governments, where it has been ana-
lyzed at both inter- as well as intra-organizational levels. Coopetition modeling
ought to refer to actor and goal modeling because goal alignment/convergence
can yield cooperation among actors while goal conflict/divergence can lead to
competition among actors. In this paper we (a) present an overview of academic
research into coopetition, (b) discuss the requirements for representing strategic
coopetition, and (c) propose future work that will be relevant for the modeling
of cooperation, competition, and coopetition.
Keywords: Coopetition. Strategy. Design. Modeling. Review.
1 Introduction
A number of researchers have proposed modeling notations and techniques for ex-
pressing and evaluating organizational strategy [1][2]. As such, a variety of modeling
approaches have been developed to describe different aspects of enterprises (e.g.,
goal, actor, value, process, etc.) [3]. Additionally, requirements engineering (RE)
researchers have applied many goal- and actor-oriented approaches to model and
analyze business strategy [4][5]. However, none of these approaches have focused
directly on the phenomenon of coopetition even though it impacts many of the enter-
prise-level entities that are of concern to them (such as goals, tasks, resources, bound-
aries, etc.). This can be partially explained by [3]’s claim that “business models are
still a new kind of model, and there remains a number of open issues to be ad-
dressed”.
Copyright © 2016 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
Proceedings of the Ninth International i* Workshop (iStar 2016), CEUR Vol-1674
Coopetition, which refers to simultaneous cooperation and competition, has become
“increasingly popular in recent years” [6] and is “an integral part of many companies’
daily agenda” [7]. While some research papers in the RE literature have discussed
competition and cooperation between enterprises [8][9] — there are many characteris-
tics of these strategic behaviors that are unexplored in the goal- and actor-modeling
literature. It can be argued that these gaps “make it difficult for requirements engi-
neers to validate low-level requirements against the more abstract high-level require-
ments representing the business strategy” [10]. Therefore, the ability to model and
analyze cooperation, competition, and coopetition represents advancement in the
state-of-the-art in conceptual modeling.
2 Enterprise Cooperation, Competition, and Coopetition
Organizational Theory (OT) is an academic discipline that is concerned with the
structure, behavior, and performance of organizations [11]. It emerged in the 1950s as
an explanation of the strategic dynamics between firms in competitive industries [12].
It was closely related to Bain’s SCP (structure, conduct, performance) paradigm ac-
cording to which the performance of a firm was determined by its conduct, which, in
turn, was impacted by various industry factors [13]. Starting in the late 1970s, Porter
popularized this view through his advancement of economic theories of “competitive
advantage” [14][15]. As such, for the first thirty years, this competitive view of or-
ganizational strategy became the dominant paradigm in OT research.
This “militaristic” view in OT was challenged throughout the 1980s and 1990s by
researchers who argued in favor of “cooperative advantage” and “collaborative ad-
vantage” [16][17]. This stream of research posited that firms could improve their
performance and increase their profits by partnering with other firms. Dyer and Singh
promoted the notion of “relational rents” as profits that were generated through rela-
tionship-specific idiosyncratic assets and resources [18]. Many rationales and justifi-
cations were offered for inter-firm relationships such as strategic alliances. These
included the ability for partner firms to acquire knowledge, share risks, access mar-
kets, spread costs, pool resources, and achieve strategic objectives.
By the mid-1990s, the field of OT was divided into two camps that offered incompat-
ible and divergent explanations of inter-firm behaviors. This is why [32] argue that
“mainstream economics and managerial research has been largely based on the di-
chotomy between competition and cooperation”. The competitive camp argued that
cooperation amongst rivals led to collusion or cartelization, which resulted in market
failure through the creation of deadweight loss, reduction of consumer surplus, and
obviation of incentives for innovation. Conversely, the cooperative/collaborative
camp rejected these assertions and instead argued that competition between partners
led to mutually destructive outcomes through the promotion of distrust/mistrust, re-
duction of goodwill, and persistence of disequilibrium in the market. It seemed that
only an esemplastic theory could resolve the creative tension between these camps.
2
Coopetition with frenemies: Towards modeling of simultaneous cooperation and competition
Coopetition theory was proposed as a syncretistic means for reconciling the competi-
tive and cooperative perspectives [19]. It was introduced in 1995 by two economists
who adopted a game-theoretic lens for interpreting inter-firm behaviors [20][21]. In
the two decades since its introduction, coopetition theory has become a prominent
field of scholarly inquiry. A number of literature reviews have noted the increase in
research interest in this field [22][23] and eminent scholarly publications have devot-
ed special issues to this topic [24][25]. Empirical fieldwork has also been used to
explore “coopetition along the antecedents-process-outcomes trail” [17][23]. Addi-
tionally, coopetition has been studied within political science, diplomacy, and civics.
3 Emerging Requirements for Coopetition Modeling
OT researchers have identified various characteristics that define coopetitive relation-
ships [6][26]. These include, but are not limited to, complementarity, interdepend-
ence, trustworthiness, and reciprocity. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the key
characteristics of coopetition that are essential for representing it. Table 1 presents a
partial list of requirements that are relevant for modeling coopetition phenomenon.
Table 2 presents a preliminary assessment of various techniques in terms of require-
ments for representing and reasoning about coopetition. The ‘Key’ column from Ta-
ble 1 should be used to identify the coded column headings in Table 2.
The list in Table 1 and the assessment in table 2 are presented as aids to stimulate
discussion and debate as they are neither comprehensive nor conclusive. Moreover,
this assessment does not consider extensions, derivatives, or combinations of the re-
viewed techniques. These tables are intended so as to introduce our approach and
orientation towards this research endeavor.
Characteristics Features Key Description for Modeling Support
2 Actors or Dyad A1 Two actors with links between them.
Actor >2 Actors or Network A2 More than two actors with links between them.
Actor Intention A3 Internal intentional structure of actor(s).
Resource/Asset/Object C1 Entity associated with some value, benefit, or utility.
Complementarity Value Added C2 Incremental addition of some value, benefit, or utility.
Added Value C3 Worth of an actor in terms of value, benefit, or utility.
Positive Dependency I1 Existence of dependency(ies) between actors.
Interdependence Negative Dependency I2 Non-existence of any dependency between actors.
Strength of Dependency I3 Magnitude of dependency (however measured).
Goal Convergence T1 Agreements between goals within and across actors.
Trustworthiness Goal Divergence T2 Conflict between goals within and across actors.
Compliance T3 Evaluation of abidance with terms and conditions.
Activity or Task R1 Individual (step) or collection (process) of actions.
Reciprocity Sequence R2 Transition from predecessor to successor action.
Condition R3 Constraints or restrictions on actions.
Tab. 1. Partial list of requirements for modeling enterprise coopetition.
3
Proceedings of the Ninth International i* Workshop (iStar 2016), CEUR Vol-1674
Technique A1 A2 A3 C1 C2 C3 I1 I2 I3 T1 T2 T3 R1 R2 R3
NFR
work
Frame-
i* Strategic
Rationale
KAOS
e3Value
Business
Model Canvas
Value Network
Analysis
Game Tree
Payoff Table
Change Matrix
Tab. 2. Preliminary assessment of modeling support for requirements from Table 1.
Table 2 shows that prominent goal- and/or actor-modeling approaches such as NFR
framework, KAOS, and i* are able to support the representation of some, but not all,
of the requirements from Table 1. Similarly, practitioner tools such as Business Mod-
el Canvas and Value Network Analysis are also deficient with respect to some of
these requirements. Nonetheless, these approaches can be extended and combined in
creative ways to overcome their respective limitations for modeling coopetition. This
is not unusual because according to [27], “depending on the needs, several languages
can also be used together in a complementary way”.
4 Conclusions and Future Work
This paper provided an overview of the phenomenon of coopetition as well as some
of its key facets and characteristics that are relevant for conceptual modeling. In addi-
tion to being an eminent research area, coopetition is also widely observed in practice.
[28] claim that “coopetition is common in several industries” and [29] note that
roughly 50% of strategic alliances are between competitors. Nonetheless, in spite of
its prominence, coopetition has not been explored in the actor- and goal-modeling
literature. We intend to address this shortcoming by developing a modeling frame-
work that is suitable for analyzing cooperation, competition, and coopetition.
We posit that an RE framework for coopetition ought to support the depiction of co-
operation and competition because coopetition represents their coaction. This is chal-
lenging because competition and cooperation are diametric social behaviors that are
undergirded by opposite logics and assumptions [30]. Their co-occurrence in any
relationship represents a paradox that creates tensions between the coopeting actors
[31] due to their “partially convergent interest (and goal) structure” [32].
4
Coopetition with frenemies: Towards modeling of simultaneous cooperation and competition
The next logical step in our research is to identify and catalog the requirements for
modeling and analyzing these phenomena. Table 1 presents a partial list of these re-
quirements however it needs further elaboration and refinement. After identifying the
requirements for modeling coopetition, our next step will be to assess the adequacy of
extant modeling languages for satisfying those requirements. Tables 2 and 3 present
preliminary findings however they merit improvement through more rigorous assay.
After evaluating individual modeling languages for satisfying the requirements from
our catalog, our next step will be to address their shortcomings. We will do this by
developing a conceptual modeling framework that extends and combines extant nota-
tions and techniques. To verify this framework, our goal will be to share it with man-
agement practitioners. Additionally, our intention is to validate this framework in the
field by collaborating with industry partners. It is our expectation that this framework
will allow the exploration of opportunities for coopetition as well as the evaluation of
strategic alternatives in a structured and systematic manner. As such, this will repre-
sent our contribution towards advancing the state-of-the-art in conceptual modeling.
References
1. Giannoulis, C., Petit, M., & Zdravkovic, J. (2011, May). Modeling business strategy: A
meta-model of strategy maps and balanced scorecards. In: Fifth International Conference
on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), 2011 (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
2. Weigand, H., Johannesson, P., Andersson, B., Bergholtz, M., Edirisuriya, A., & Ilaype-
ruma, T. (2007, January). Strategic Analysis Using Value Modeling--The c3-Value Ap-
proach. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 40 (6). IEEE.
3. Johannesson, P. (2007). The role of business models in enterprise modelling. In: Concep-
tual modelling in information systems engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
4. Paja, E., Maté, A., Woo, C., & Mylopoulos, J. (2016). Can Goal Reasoning Techniques be
used for Strategic Decision-Making? In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference
on Conceptual Modeling. Nov. 14-17, 2016, Gifu, Japan.
5. Carvallo, J. P., & Franch, X. (2012). Building strategic enterprise context models with i*: a
pattern-based approach. In: Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-
Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation (pp. 40-59). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
6. Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. (2009). Co-opetition and technological innovation in small
and medium-sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business
Management, 47(3), 308-330.
7. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and
future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180-188.
8. Giannoulis, C., Petit, M., & Zdravkovic, J. (2011, June). Modeling competition-driven
business strategy for business IT alignment. In: International Conference on Advanced In-
formation Systems Engineering (pp. 16-28). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
9. Liu, X., Peyton, L., & Kuziemsky, C. (2009, May). A requirement engineering framework
for electronic data sharing of health care data between organizations. In: International
Conference on E-Technologies (pp. 279-289). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
10. Bleistein, S. J., Cox, K., & Verner, J. (2004, November). Modeling business strategy in e-
business systems requirements engineering. In: International Conference on Conceptual
Modeling (pp. 617-628). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
5
Proceedings of the Ninth International i* Workshop (iStar 2016), CEUR Vol-1674
11. Pugh, D. S. (1966). Modern organization theory: A psychological and sociological study.
Psychological Bulletin, 66(4), 235.
12. Linstead, S., Maréchal, G., & Chanlat, J. F. (2008). Towards Euranglo research? A critical
comparison of thirty years of Anglo-Saxon and French organizational analysis. Anniver-
sary Issue, Revue Sciences De Gestion, 30th, 65, 357-376.
13. Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to New Competition: Their Character and Consequences in
Manufacturing Industries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14. Porter, M. E. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management.
Academy Of Management Review, 6(4), 609-620.
15. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 12(S2), 95-117.
16. Ketelhöhn, W. (1993). What do we mean by cooperative advantage? European Manage-
ment Journal, 11(1), 30-37.
17. Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the
search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1).
18. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4).
19. Padula, G., & Dagnino, G. B. (2007). Untangling the rise of coopetition: the intrusion of
competition in a cooperative game structure. International Studies of Management & Or-
ganization, 37(2), 32-52.
20. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1995). The right game: Use game theory to
shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 57-71.
21. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
22. Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition:
Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management.
23. Czakon, W., Mucha-Kus, K., & Rogalski, M. (2014). Coopetition research landscape - a
systematic literature review 1997-2010. Journal of Economics & Management, 17.
24. Dagnino, G. B. (Ed.). (2007). Coopetition Strategy: Toward A New Kind Of Interfirm Dy-
namics [Special Issue]. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(2).
25. Baglieri, D., Dagnino, G.B., Giarratana, M.S. & Gutiérrez, I. (Eds.) (2008). Stretching the
Boundaries of Coopetition [Special Issue]. Management Research, 6(3).
26. Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition dynamics-an outline for
further inquiry. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(2).
27. Giannoulis, C., Zikra, I., Bergholtz, M., Zdravkovic, J., Stirna, J., & Johannesson, P.
(2013). A comparative analysis of enterprise modeling approaches for modeling business
strategy. In: 6th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling
(PoEM 2013), Riga, Latvia, November 6-7, 2013 (pp. 193-204).
28. Baglieri, D., Carfì, D., & Dagnino, G. B. (2012, July). Asymmetric R&D alliances and
coopetitive games. In: International Conference on Information Processing and Manage-
ment of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, 607-621. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
29. Harbison, J.R., & Pekar, P.P. (1998). Smart Alliances: A Practical Guide To Repeatable
Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). ” Coopetition” in business Networks—to cooperate and
compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426.
31. Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in
coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189-198.
32. Dagnino, G. B. (2009). Coopetition strategy: A new kind of interfirm dynamics for value
creation. In: Dagnino, G.B. & Rocco, E. (Eds.), Coopetition Strategy: Theory, Experiments
and Cases (pp. 74-100). Routledge: New York.
6