Elsevier

Industrial Marketing Management

Volume 90, October 2020, Pages 648-662
Industrial Marketing Management

Value-creation-capture-equilibrium in new product development alliances: A matter of coopetition, expert power, and alliance importance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.019Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Coopetition stimulates balanced value creation and capture in NPD alliances.

  • Relative alliance importance negatively moderates this relationship.

  • Expert power of the partner positively moderates this relationship.

Abstract

Alliances are often thought to be longer lasting and lead to better results when they are perceived as equal and fair in terms of how efforts and rewards are distributed. This study conceptualizes the value-creation-capture-equilibrium (VCCE) as the relative inputs and efforts made by alliance partners to create and capture innovation-related value. We seek to better understand the determinants of the VCCE in dyadic new product development (NPD) alliances. We focus on three factors from a focal firm's perspective: (1) the coopetition intensity with the alliance partner (i.e. simultaneous competition and collaboration), (2) the expert power of the alliance partner, and (3) the relative importance of the particular NPD alliance. We hypothesize that coopetition intensity stabilizes the VCCE. Furthermore, we assume that the partner's expert power and the focal firm's relative alliance importance negatively moderate the relationship between coopetition intensity and the VCCE. Based on a dataset of N = 471 NPD alliances of high-tech firms, we find partial support for our hypotheses and contribute towards a better understanding of the factors influencing the VCCE in NPD alliances.

Introduction

Firms form alliances to access external resources for their new product development (NPD) (Das, 2014; Lee, Park, Yoon, & Park, 2010; Santamaría, Nieto, & Barge-Gil, 2009; Schleimer & Faems, 2016). However, many NPD alliances experience imbalances between firms' inputs to value creation and abilities to capture value (Das & Rahman, 2010; Fonti, Maoret, & Whitbred, 2017; Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009), which might exist due to differences in the firms' abilities and motivation (Chen, Kuo-Hsien, & Tsai, 2007; Kalaignanam, Shankar, & Varadarajan, 2007). For instance, alliance partners are sometimes tempted to behave opportunistically, such as by reducing their inputs into value creation or by maximizing their value capture (Das & Teng, 2000; Fredrich, Bouncken, & Kraus, 2019; Hamel, 1991). Furthermore, while alliance partners might equally contribute to value creation, some partners might be more proficient and motivated in capturing the added innovation value (Clauss & Bouncken, 2019; Hoffmann, Lavie, Reuer, & Shipilov, 2018). Especially from a dynamic relational view (Das & Teng, 2000; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Dyer, Singh, & Hesterly, 2018), alliances with a sufficient symmetry in value creation and capture are more likely to reach their long-term goals, while asymmetry could lead to potential opportunism and relationship failure (Das & Rahman, 2010). The concept of the value-creation-capture-equilibrium (VCCE) between firms in alliances describes firms' relative inputs and efforts to the value creation in dyadic NPD alliances, as well as the alliance partners' relative abilities in capturing a portion of that value in the pursuit of private and common benefits (Bouncken, Fredrich, Kraus, & Ritala, 2019; Khanna, Gulati, & Nohria, 1998). The high uncertainties of inputs and outputs of NPD alliances bring challenges to the VCCE (Hoffmann et al., 2018; Jacobides, Knudsen, & Augier, 2006; Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006). This VCCE exists when firms have equally (i.e. to the same extent) contributed to value creation and involve equal abilities to capture the value created from a particular NPD alliance (Bouncken, Fredrich, Kraus, & Ritala, 2019). Yet, little is known on when firms pursue balance of value creation and capture in alliances (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006; Ozmel, Yavuz, Reuer, & Zenger, 2017).

Our paper aims to explain how and why firms can achieve an equilibrium in the relative value creation and value capture in their NPD alliances. Inter-firm relationships experience a variance of inputs, outputs, and learning over the course of the alliance (Das & Kumar, 2007; Das & Teng, 2002; Dyer et al., 2018). Combining the relational view with the literature on innovation alliances (Clauss & Bouncken, 2019; Rai, 2016; Tyler & Caner, 2016; Wagner & Goossen, 2018; Wu, Luo, Slotegraaf, & Aspara, 2015), we model three important determinants that might influence the VCCE. The first is the coopetition intensity between the alliance partners (i.e. simultaneous competition and collaboration), the second is the expert power of the alliance partner, and the third is the focal firm's relative importance of the particular NPD alliance. All three conditions can facilitate imbalances and learning opportunities related to a dynamic relational view of dyadic alliances (Das & Teng, 2000; Dyer et al., 2018; Dyer & Singh, 1998).

Our model thus considers three conditions to VCCE. The first considers competitive and collaborative dynamics (i.e. coopetition) that have to be balanced in alliances (Cassiman, Di Guardo, & Valentini, 2009; Gnyawali & Park, 2011). Coopetition involves potential for bargaining and tensions (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996) that need to be considered as drivers and barriers to VCCE (Tidström, 2014). On the upside, coopetition tensions drive the search for new solutions using the strength of partners (Tidström, 2014), while on the downside, coopetition tensions go along with opportunism risks and protection (Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton, 2018). Considering the two effects, we expect that greater levels of coopetition intensity will promote a more balanced VCCE in NPD alliances. Second, the expert power of the focal firm's NPD partner brings expertise and power that might improve value creation processes, but also comes with dangers of power asymmetries (Clauss & Bouncken, 2019; Sahadev, 2005). Expert power refers to the power source's access to knowledge and skills desired by the power target (French Jr. & Raven, 1959). When the other firm has high expertise, it might contribute valuable external resources to the alliance. Expert power partners can kick-off a huge array of learning dynamics that might bind partners but also provide opportunities for imbalances (Dyer et al., 2018; Dyer, Singh, & Kale, 2008). Still, an expert partner might also have improved abilities to “outsmart” the other actors. In NPD alliances, expert power partners have high levels of knowledge about the problem space under consideration, e.g. market or technological expertise that may provide further information advantages and benefits (Maloni & Benton, 2000; Stern, Dukerich, & Zajac, 2014). On the one hand, we expect that focal firms are likely to seek balanced VCCE in their NPD alliances with partners possessing high levels of expert power given these high stakes. On the other hand, we also expect that partners with high expert power might intensify coopetition tensions and lead to alliance instability (Das & Teng, 2000; Dyer et al., 2008; Dyer et al., 2018), resulting in less balanced NPD alliances. In our study, we thus anticipate that expert power will exhibit a positive direct effect and a negative moderating effect on the relationship between coopetition intensity and VCCE. Third, investments in relation-specific assets contribute towards relational rents (Dyer et al., 2008; Dyer et al., 2018), and gradually affect the relative importance of the focal NPD alliance (i.e. the relative financial importance of the alliance within overall sales of the focal firm). The relative importance triggers further attention to the alliance and also motivates the focal firm to establish a long-term relationship. Thus, we expect that the importance of the NPD alliance will increase the focal firm's efforts to balance its VCCE. Again, we expect that this balance-seeking is disrupted when coopetition intensity increases and the focal firm attributes more relative importance to the NPD alliance. Here, either of the firms might become more interested in individual gains or restrict their value creation inputs, thereby negatively influencing the VCCE.

We test our model using a survey study of N = 471 high-tech firms pursuing dyadic NPD alliances. NPD alliances rely on the partnering firms' R&D capacities, but also complementarities in the areas of intellectual property, technology, sourcing, and marketing (Pullen, Weerd-Nederhof, Groen, & Fisscher, 2012). Thus, NPD alliances in our study potentially involve collaboration at multiple stages of the product innovation process (Ahmed & Shepherd, 2010).

Our results show that increasing intensities of coopetition relate to greater VCCE. We find that expert power has a positive moderating effect on the coopetition-VCCE relationship which is in contrast to our hypothesized negative moderation. Aligned with our theorizing, greater relative importance of the NPD alliance to the focal firm has a positive direct effect on the VCCE. This relative importance also exhibits a negative moderating effect on the coopetition-VCCE relationship.

Overall, our study brings the concept and conditions of VCCE to the dynamic relational view of alliances (Das and Teng, 2000, Dyer et al., 2018, Dyer et al., 2008). Focusing on relative value creation and relative value capture separately, we were able to further disentangle the underlying mechanisms and reveal nuanced, yet important differences that inform research on value creation and capture in alliances (Lavie, 2006a; Ozmel et al., 2017), and particularly under coopetition (Arslan, 2018; Bouncken, Fredrich, & Kraus, 2020; Fonti et al., 2017; Hoffmann et al., 2018; Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009). We show that coopetition – itself a balance between collaboration and competition – is a convergence force to value creation and capture, highlighting the specificity of coopetition as argued by coopetition scholars (Czakon & Rogalski, 2014; Granata, Lasch, Le Roy, & Dana, 2017; Le Roy & Czakon, 2015). Furthermore, reflecting the high stakes and related mutual monitoring, we support that positive tensions of expert power facilitate the balanced value creation and capture in highly coopetitive NPD alliances (Czakon, 2009; Fernandez, Le Roy, & Gnyawali, 2014; Gnyawali & Park, 2011). We also clarify negative tensions related to the competition-dominated behavior in coopetition (Arslan, 2018; Asgari, Tandon, Singh, & Mitchell, 2018; Cui, Yang, & Vertinsky, 2018; Tidström, 2014) by demonstrating how high alliance importance (as perceived by the focal firm), coupled with high coopetition intensity, will result in unbalanced value creation and capture in dyadic NPD alliances.

Section snippets

New product development alliances

Alliances refer to a wide range of interfirm relationships, most of them including strategic purposes (Osborn & Hagedoorn, 1997). According to Kale and Singh (2009), a strategic alliance is “a purposive relationship between two or more independent firms that involves the exchange, sharing, or co-development of resources or capabilities to achieve mutually relevant benefits” (p. 46). The relational view of alliances and its revisited dynamic relational view delivers a fundamental theoretical

Hypotheses

The dynamic relational view that considers inter-partner dynamics and stabilization in alliances guides our theorizing (Dyer et al., 2018). Alliances undergo social processes that include learning and that determine the creation of value in alliances (Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Dyer & Singh, 1998). Knowledge exchange and learning processes create relational rents and can breed further complementarities (Weber et al., 2016). On the one hand, high stability in repeated ties can reduce performance (

Sample

We focus on a broad range of highly innovative industries represented by firms at any of eight independent, international trade fairs hosted in Germany during 2014–2017. Overall 53,305 international exhibitors classified as service providers (e.g. SIC code 7371) and manufacturers of electronics (e.g. SIC code 3679) and medical devices (e.g. SIC code 3841) participated in these trade fairs. We reduced common method variance (CMV) by following recommendations of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and

Hypothesis testing

Table 2 provides results based on MLR estimations for nested models starting with control variables and the main hypothesis 1 (Model A). We find support for coopetition intensity leading to a greater VCCE (H1: β = 0.15, p = .002). Model B and Model C introduce expert power and relative alliance importance as additional contingencies separately, with Model D testing both contingencies simultaneously. We find no evidence of the partner's expert power affecting the VCCE directly, rejecting

Theoretical implications

Our study is embedded in the dynamic relational view (Dyer et al., 2008; Dyer et al., 2018; Dyer & Singh, 1998). We consider the dynamic relational view in the context of NPD alliances where complementarities and positive externalities between partnering firms are key (Cui et al., 2018; Schleimer & Faems, 2016; Wagner & Goossen, 2018). To increase complementarities, firms need to be motivated to learn and to integrate their unequal capabilities to value creation. Furthermore, to achieve

References (154)

  • B. Cassiman et al.

    Organising R&D projects to profit from innovation: Insights from co-opetition

    Long Range Planning

    (2009)
  • T. Clauss et al.

    Social power as an antecedence of governance in buyer-supplier alliances

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2019)
  • I. Estrada et al.

    Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2016)
  • S.-R. Fang et al.

    Dark side of relationships: A tensions-based view

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2011)
  • A.-S. Fernandez et al.

    Managing tensions related to information in coopetition

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2016)
  • A.-S. Fernandez et al.

    Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2014)
  • V. Fredrich et al.

    The race is on: Configurations of absorptive capacity, interdependence and slack resources for interorganizational learning in coopetition alliances

    Journal of Business Research

    (2019)
  • D.R. Gnyawali et al.

    Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation

    Research Policy

    (2011)
  • M.G. Jacobides et al.

    Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures

    Research Policy

    (2006)
  • S. Jakobsen et al.

    Collaborative dynamics in environmental R&D alliances

    Journal of Cleaner Production

    (2019)
  • R.E. Johnsen et al.

    An exploration of the “dark side” associations of conflict, power and dependence in customer–supplier relationships

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2016)
  • D. Lavie

    Capturing value from alliance portfolios

    Organizational Dynamics

    (2009)
  • P.K. Ahmed et al.

    Innovation management – Context, strategies, systems and processes

    (2010)
  • J. Alves et al.

    Partner selection in co-opetition: A three step model

    Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship

    (2015)
  • S. Ansari et al.

    The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2016)
  • A. Ariño et al.

    The role of fairness in alliance formation

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2010)
  • A. Arora et al.

    Complementary and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology

    The Journal of Industrial Economics

    (1990)
  • B. Arslan

    The interplay of competitive and cooperative behavior and differential benefits in alliances

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2018)
  • N. Asgari et al.

    Creating and taming discord: How firms manage embedded competition in alliance portfolios to limit alliance termination

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2018)
  • K. Atuahene-Gima et al.

    The contingent value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product program performance

    Journal of Product Innovation Management

    (2005)
  • K.J. Behfar et al.

    The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2008)
  • I.M. Bodas Freitas et al.

    Formalized problem-solving practices and the effects of collaboration with suppliers on a firm’s product innovation performance

    Journal of Product Innovation Management

    (2017)
  • R.B. Bouncken et al.

    Shared digital identity and rich knowledge ties in global 3D printing – A drizzle in the clouds?

    Global Strategy Journal

    (2020)
  • R.B. Bouncken et al.

    Coopetition: Its successful management in the nexus of dependency and trust

    Proceedings of PICMET

    (2011)
  • R.B. Bouncken et al.

    Coopetition: Performance implications and management antecedents

    International Journal of Innovation Management

    (2012)
  • R.B. Bouncken et al.

    Innovation alliances: Balancing value creation dynamics, competitive intensity and market overlap

    Journal of Business Research

    (2019)
  • R.B. Bouncken et al.

    Coopetition in new product development alliances: Advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation

    British Journal of Management

    (2018)
  • A.M. Brandenburger et al.

    Co-opetition

    (1996)
  • R.W. Brislin

    Translation and content analysis of oral and written material

  • R.K. Chandy et al.

    The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation

    Journal of Marketing

    (2000)
  • M.-J. Chen et al.

    Competitive tension: The awareness-motivation-capability perspective

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2007)
  • K.S. Chin et al.

    Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy

    Industrial Management & Data Systems

    (2008)
  • W.M. Cohen et al.

    Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1990)
  • V. Cui et al.

    Attacking your partners: Strategic alliances and competition between partners in product markets

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2018)
  • W. Czakon

    Power asymmetries, flexibility and the propensity to coopete: An empirical investigation of SMEs’ relationships with franchisors

    International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business

    (2009)
  • W. Czakon et al.

    Coopetition typology revisited–a behavioural approach

    International Journal of Business Environment

    (2014)
  • T. Das et al.

    Learning dynamics in the alliance development process

    Management Decision

    (2007)
  • T. Das et al.

    Determinants of partner opportunism in strategic alliances: A conceptual framework

    Journal of Business and Psychology

    (2010)
  • T.K. Das et al.

    Alliance constellations: A social exchange perspective

    Academy of Management Review

    (2002)
  • Cited by (48)

    • Coopetition and technology licensing partner selection

      2023, Industrial Marketing Management
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text