LEARNING LOG RECORD SHEET: 1st November 2011, Neil Thomas.

SOURCE/FULL REFERENCEZineldin, Mosad (2004) Co-opetition: the organisation of the future, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol22, No7, pp.780-789 | DESCRIPTIONCo-opetition. The hybrid behaviour of competition and cooperation or Sleeping with the enemy? | ANALYSIS (CONCEPTS, EXAMPLES, STATUS OF SOURCE, CRITIQUE etc)Dr Mosad Zineldin is a Professor of Strategic Marketing and a Master in Psychology. He has wrote and published several books and articles in many different international journals, notably his book on TRM, the first in the world to outline the framework of relationship management.However, his article “Co-opetition: the organisation of the future” (marketing, intelligence & planning, Vol 22 No7, 2004 pp.780-789) suggests that this is a new concept of cooperation between companies or has Zineldin linked this to support his work on TRM? Co-opetition is qualified for the first time by Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1996) which surprisingly Zineldin fails to recognize in the article! But even these esteemed authors cannot take credit for the concept of Co-opetition; this accolade is accredited to Mr Ray Noorda, who in 1983 brought together hardware and software companies to work together in a networked environment, a “culture fit” which supports Bengtsson and Kock (2000). “co-opetition thus implies that organisations can interact in rivalry due to conflicting interests, and at the same time co-operate due to common interests” This concept questions Hensler (2000) in which he “describes as a myth the notion that competition is an inevitable, productive, enjoyable and character- building part of human nature”, human nature has always been survival. It could be argued that Margulis (1998) serial endosymbiosis theory (SET) that one organism lives inside the other and both function as a single organism reinforces the concept of co-opetition. Co-opetition is a hybrid comprising of competition (rivalry/ war) and cooperation (collaboration / teamwork), in organisational terms these are totally opposite each other. The Darwinian anthropology holds that human behaviour is adaptive, we evolve, we ask questions and we learn. Lado, Boyd & Hanlon (1997) have emphasized the increasing importance of co-opetition in today’s dynamics. Zineldin suggests that co-opetition is a relationship based on value net, which translates into “multiple relationships” which ultimately product a larger piece of the pie, is this his way of recognising the work of Nalebuff and Brandenburger without reference? Bengtsson and Kock (2000) cite the case of Trellex & Skega, world leaders in protective lining products formally competing against each other in P&D, they now co-operate in the development of material. The examples of co-opetition suggest that only large organisations participate. Is it easier for larger organisations to formulate a strategic approach, one which has the potential to create synergies for both parties? Equally larger organisations have the ability and resource to manage the additional knowledge gained, whereas (SMEs) small, medium enterprises are suitably placed to develop from such agreements but unfortunately they may be restricted in resource. Under co-opetition organisations have to manage knowledge sharing. MSEs are knowledge generators but are poor in knowledge exploitation, which in turn may lead to exploitation by the bigger brother! Co-opetitive relationships hinges on many factors: Trust, strategic approach and knowledge sharing. Getting people to share their knowledge is not common placed, especially B2B. Potential co-opetitive relationships are in competition with each other, customers, markets, suppliers etc. To reverse this attitude to one of cooperation/ collaboration will require a clear defined strategy, the goal must be coordination between all parties, which is a total role reversal from the normal company culture. In the coopetitive perspective, “firms must adopt aggressive strategies because they must adapt to a hypercompetitive environment and must also carry out cooperative strategies, either to counter their competitors or to mutualise their resources and to exchange knowledge” Lado et al (1997) The reluctance to share information could be attributed against the members of the team, larger organisations may appoint a junior manager to facilitate the process but due to resource issues SMEs would have to assign a senior manager whose focus may be diverted away from the core business. This amalgamation also entails a very large potential for problems and difficulties for one or more of the partners. Ford et al (1998) theory involves “managers working with other companies, but it also involves working against them, through them and often in spite of them”. It might be argued that the approach by Ford contradicts the foundations of Perrin and Villa (1982) “close cooperation and good communication processes are essential, given the types of transactions involved”, this is also supported by the observation of Sherman (1992) “the biggest stumbling block to success of co-opetition is the lack of trust” but trust evolves both in degree and in time. The benefits of co-opetition are well documented. Toyota co-opetition with its suppliers was recently highlighted during the unfortunate earthquake in Asia. Due to the impact on the local suppliers Toyota suspended production, was this a financial or a moral decision, would they have done the same if the supplier was anything other than Asian or a different culture? Is it possible for co-opetition to exist between group companies, i.e. suppliers and final users, this potentially could generate profit on profit, is this ethical and more importantly is it legal? There is still one outstanding question, who is in charge and will the prescribed synergies be acceptable to all? If not divorce is always an option!An ancient Chinese proverb holds “ He who cannot agree with his enemies is controlled by them” | USEFULNESS/FUTURE RESEARCH/ACTIVITY PLANNEDA practical introduction which encourages you to continue reading. The bullet point headings suggest a logical approach to the criteria required for any potential co-opetition agreement. However, Zineldin’s analysis presents comments from other notable scholars which I feel stimulate further debate. The concept of a co-opetition agreement within my current company is something that requires further investigation. The Current economic environment suggests that there could be opportunities to develop partnerships with suppliers/competitors. |

References

Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S.(2000), “Tension in co-opetition, C&C”, paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Cooperation &Competition, Vaxjo University,Vaxjo, 8-10 November.

Ford,D.,Gadde,L.-E.,Hakansson,H.,Lundgren,A.,Snehota,L.,Turnbull,P.and Wilson,D.(1998) Managing Business Relationships, Wiley, New York, NY.

Hensler, D.(2000),”Cooperation in the competitive environment of new growth economics” Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Cooperation Competition,Vaxjo University,Vaxjo, 8-10 November.

Lado A., Boyd N.G. et Hanlon ,S.C.(1997),”Competition, cooperation and the search for Economic rents: A syncretic model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 22, No 1, p.110-141.

Margulis, L. (1998),Symbiotic Planet, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Nalebuff B. and Brandenburger A. (1996), Co-opetition, London, Profile Book.

Perrin, M. and Valla,J.-P. (1982), “Francelce ‘company cases”, in Hakansson, H. (Ed.), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods- An Interaction Approach, Wiley, Chicester.

Sherman, S. (1992), “Are strategic alliances working?”, Fortune, September, pp.77-8.

I certify this work is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. All references have been duly cited.

Signed