Implementing the right project structure to achieve coopetitive innovation projects

Anne Sophie Fernandez (), Frédéric Le Roy () and Paul Chiambaretto ()
Additional contact information
Anne Sophie Fernandez: MRM - Montpellier Research in Management - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School - UM - Université de Montpellier
Frédéric Le Roy: MRM - Montpellier Research in Management - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School - UM - Université de Montpellier
Paul Chiambaretto: MRM - Montpellier Research in Management - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School - UM - Université de Montpellier, Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School, Université Paris-Saclay

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This research focuses on the project structure used by coopetitors to achieve common innovation projects. Scholars have recently identified an original but complex project structure that they call the Coopetitive Project Team (CPT). However, other project structures can also be implemented by coopetitors to achieve innovation. Therefore, we address the following question: for which types of innovation projects is CPT appropriate? We argue that coopetitors need to use CPT for high-risk and high-cost projects when the aim is to develop radical innovation. CPT allows coopetitors not only to develop innovation capabilities through close resource and knowledge sharing but also to manage the risk of opportunism. Conversely, coopetitors should use another project structure, Separated Project Teams (SPTs), for low-cost and low-risk projects when the aim is to develop incremental innovation. The SPT design allows coopetitors both to achieve the goal of the project and to minimize the risk of opportunism. To confirm our assumptions, we studied the project portfolios of Airbus and Thales, two firms in the space satellite industry. Our findings confirm that coopetitors should implement CPTs to handle innovation projects that are costly, risky and highly innovative. CPTs permit the sharing of knowledge and the management of high opportunism risk, both of which are necessary to achieve radical innovation. Conversely, coopetitors rely on SPTs for low-cost projects that require a low degree of knowledge sharing, thus avoiding the risk of opportunism in achieving their incremental innovation objectives.

Keywords: Coopetition; Risk; of; opportunism; Economic; and; technological; risks; Coopetitive; project; team; Separated; project; team; Case; study; Space; industry (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018-04
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Published in Long Range Planning, 2018, 51 (2), pp.384-405. ⟨10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.009⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02051335

DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.009

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().