Frédéric Le Roy

Coopetitive strategies in the ICT sector: typology and stability

The paradoxical nature of coopetition is determined by a combination of collaboration and competition. Coopetition is a relational mode frequently applied by information and communications technologty (ICT) firms. Using a qualitative approach, this study investigates the evolution of inter-firms coopetitive agreements in the enterprise resource planning (ERP) industry, and on the basis of this data, attempts to discuss coopetition typology and stability in this specific market context. The findings indicate the existence of two main types of coopetitive agreements, coopetitive projects with (i) vertical or (ii) horizontal cooperation between the competing partners. These two coopetition types have different characteristics in terms of purpose, dynamics and stability, presenting a specific balance between competitive tensions and collaboration benefits. The study concludes with a summary of the main findings and with practical propositions directed towards alliance managers.

Critical growth factors of ICT start‐ups

Purpose – The present study in this paper seeks to deal with the crucial topic of growth determinants for ICT start‐ups. In this emerging industry high firm birth rates go hand in hand with a great risk of failure and only one firm out of three survives the first three years.Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyzes 220 start‐ups of the ICT service sector and verifies the influence of individual and organisational factors on growth.Findings – The paper finds that human capital and working experience have no significant impact on the success of young ICT firms.Originality/value – The paper shows that critical growth factors are mostly financing and customer related variables (firm size and capital at start‐up, customer structure, regional market orientation, etc.).

Managing Coopetitive Tensions at the Working‐group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team

This study seeks to provide insights into the management of coopetitive tensions at the working‐group level. We theoretically discuss the principles of separation and integration and a combination of both to manage coopetitive tensions at this level. An in‐depth case study of a space programme conducted by two competitors − Astrium and Thales Alenia Space − was conducted. At the organizational level, according to the separation principle, we found that the coopetitors implemented a Coopetitive Project Team separated from the rest of their organization. At the individual level, according to the integration principle, we evidenced that project managers internalize the coopetitive paradox. At the working‐group level, we revealed a new principle, that of co‐management. The co‐management principle, in the case of dyadic coopetition, relies on the implementation of a dual, equally shared governance structure and a dual management committee. To efficiently manage coopetitive tensions, firms are combining the separation principle at the organizational level, the co‐management principle at the working‐group level and the integration principle at the individual level.

Choosing the Best Partner for Product Innovation

Abstract: Innovation strategies are increasingly inter-organizational, and yet firms may find it difficult to choose the appropriate type of cooperation: with competitors (coopetition) or with non-competitors (suppliers, customers, universities, etc.). Coopetition is frequently considered to be a riskier venture, which may lead to the conclusion that this strategy is not the most appropriate for increasing a firm’s innovation. The literature on the topic is inconclusive so we try to clarify this issue by introducing a new dimension to the nexus of inter-organizational cooperation and innovation, namely, the geographical location of the cooperation partner. We analyze cooperation strategies with different types of partners and we test our hypotheses on 3,933 firms sampled from the French CIS 04 database. We find that the choice of cooperation strategy depends on the type of cooperation partner (non-rival or competitor), on the type of innovation (radical or incremental); and on the geographical location of the competitor.

How Does Centrality in Coopetition Networks Matter? An Empirical Investigation in the Mobile Telephone Industry

This research examines how a firms position in a coopetitive network (formed through cooperation among firms within an industry) influences the extent of the firms competitive aggressiveness and market performance. The authors collected data on the competitive and cooperative actions of firms in the mobile telephone industry from 2000 to 2006, using structured content analysis of news reports. The results show that the centrality of a firm in a coopetitive network contributes to the firms competitive aggressiveness through increased volume and variety of competitive actions. Further, the more central a firm is in the network, the greater is its market performance. Firms that undertake more volume and variety of competitive actions improve their market performance. Overall, these results show that being in a central position in a coopetition network is quite advantageous for the firm.

The rise and fall of collective strategies: a case study

The aim of this research is for us to better understand collective strategies. To do so, the competitive behaviour of businesses in the French fish-canning industry from the 1960s to the 1980s is studied in depth. This study allows us, on the one hand, to define the conditions under which this type of strategy can emerge and stabilise and, on the other, to show the endogenous nature of its dissolution.

The development of an innovation strategy in the SME context

The objective of this research is to study the process of creation and development of a disruptive strategy in the Small- and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) context. The method consists in thoroughly studying the case of an SME, which made a success of a disruptive strategy. Two lessons are drawn from the case. First is that SMEs, because of their specificities, are organisations very favourable to the development of disruptive strategies. The second is the difficulty, which these companies have in renewing this type of strategy. The initial success at the same time involves growth of the company and imitation by new competitors. These new competitors exert a strong competing pressure on a company that progressively loses its specificities of SME with its growth, and thus its capacity to make new strategic innovations.

Survival and growth of start-ups in innovation- and knowledge-based branches: an empirical analysis of the French ICT sector

The ICT sector in France is characterized by intense firm birth rates, but also by a high mortality. Five years after the start-up, only 38.7% of the firms survived, comparing to 51.0% in the middle high technology and 46.3% in non-innovative branches (Lasch, 2003a). The high growth potential of ICT firms is linked to specific problems, such as a higher risk of failure, a difficult financing, the lack of knowledge in firm management of new entrepreneurs, etc. (Pleschak, 1997). Mostly SMEs, young ICT firms are extremely fragile, so the present chapter proposes to discuss the crucial topic of survival and growth in innovation and knowledge-based sectors.

How do micro-firms manage coopetition? A study of the wine sector in France:

Research on coopetition – the simultaneous occurrence of competition and cooperation among firms – is usually limited to the realm of large firms. While some research has examined the motives and outcomes of coopetition among small- and medium-sized business, little is known about how coopetition is managed among micro-firms. The French wine sector is dominated by micro-firms, among which coopetition is common. Focusing on the Pic Saint Loup area in south-eastern France, this article analyses how micro-firms manage coopetition. While we observe similarities in coopetition with respect to large firms, a distinct micro-firm coopetition mode is identified: (a) contrary to expectations, the management of coopetition is highly formalised in micro-firms; (b) as with large firms, the management of micro-firm coopetition requires a separation between competition and cooperation, but such separation occurs outside the firm – in the form of a collective structure; and (c) in contrast to large firms, small firms exhibit an increase in individual-level dimensions of coopetition with decreasing firm size. We conclude that policy should encourage coopetition among micro-firms provided that it is tailored to micro-firm specificities.

Managing Selling Coopetition: A Case Study of the ERP industry

Managing coopetition is important for the success of coopetition strategies. Past studies on the management of coopetition are largely dedicated to R&D coopetition. However, selling coopetition is an important phenomenon that is quite different from R&D coopetition. In this research, we therefore focus on the management of selling coopetition and build on past studies to formalize a framework that combines two complementary principles: separation and integration. We then evaluate the relevance of this framework for managing selling coopetitive agreements by studying how firms from the ERP industry manage their coopetitive selling. The results show that the principles of separation and integration are present but not sufficient to manage selling coopetition. We underline that a third principle, internal arbitration, is a key element in managing selling coopetition. To our knowledge, this is the first study specifically dedicated to the management of selling coopetition.