Why firms implement Coopetitive-Project Teams?

Anne-Sophie Fernandez () and Frédéric Le Roy ()
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

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Coopetition strategies are driven by the share of the risks and costs of innovation. However, to implement their strategy, coopetitors can rely on two separated projects teams or on a single Coopetitive Project Team (CPT). By pooling their resources in a CPT, coopetitors face a higher level of imitation and spoliation. The question becomes why coopetitors create a CPT and face higher levels of risks when they have other alternatives? Following the literature about risk management in strategic alliances, unilateral contract-based alliances are preferred to minimize relational risks while bilateral contract-based alliances are appropriate to minimize performance risks. We assume that coopetitors create CPT when the performance risks of the project are high. To illustrate our framework, we study the project portfolios of Astrium and TAS in the space industry. Our findings confirm that coopetitors accept higher levels of relational risks and create CPT when the performance risks of the project are high. On the contrary, coopetitors rely on two separated project teams and assume low relational risks when the performance risks of the project are low.

Keywords: coopetition; relational risk; performance risk; Coopetitive Project Team; case study; space industry (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Vingt-cinquième Conférence de l’AIMS, 2016, Hammamet, Tunisia

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-02101085

Access Statistics for this paper

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