Abstract

The aim of the article. The aim of the article is to investigate, analyze and generalize the current trends in the strategic management in the certain chronology from the Resource-Based Concept to the Coopetition, with segregation of the main findings of the previous researchers and generalization of the opportunities to implement formed concepts and approaches at Ukrainian enterprises. The results of the research. The base of the analysis were Resource-Based View, Concept of 5Ps by Henry Mintzberg, Value Chain Concept by Michael Porter, Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management, offered by Edward Freeman, Concept of Core Competences by G. Hamel and C.K. Prahald, the model of open innovation of H.W. Chesbrough and Coopetition Model of A. Brandenburger and B. Nalebuff. Historical overview allows to evaluate the contributions of every concept into the strategic management development and to compare their usability under modern market conditions. The analysis of the coopetition literature revealed just a few Ukrainian papers on this topic. This research is focused on the works on Coopetition which had not been presented in Ukrainian academic scholar community before. The preconditions of the appearance of coopetition were analyzed through the investigation of the evolution in the filed. The paper is constructed in the certain chronology to reveal the most influential approaches into current understanding of the competitive advantage nature. The research starts with the Resource-Based View and its founders and went deeper in the analysis of the Edith Penrouse’s contributions into strategic management development. She was the scientist who mentioned that abilities or competences of the firm, nonmaterial resources, knowledge and their combinations can be the source of innovations and market dominance. Other scientists made the efforts to structuralize the industry and decision-making process to allow the forecasting and management of the future state to be possible. In this connection we should mention the concept of Henry Mintzberg and Michael Porter’s Five Forces Model and Value Chain framework. The overview of the integral concept of Henry Mintzberg allows assuming that it can be used nowadays, as it’s general and diverse at the same time. Value Chain concept of Michael Porter gave a lot insights to the strategists; we should mention the Porter’s idea about «cohesion» became a source of synergism in the value chain later; then the appearance of Net Value concept which at some point sprang the coopetition appearance, and of course, Global Value Chain concept. Stakeholder Approach to the strategic management offered by Edward Freeman solved the problems of the Porter’s model (e.g. the absence of the community force) by structuralizing the goals balanced zone and became one of the most well-known among the strategic and project managers. This approach was assuming the alliances with the stakeholders as an option to create win strategy. Core Competence Theory offered by C.K. Prahalad and G. Hamel brought new paradigm in the strategic management, which had changed the focus of strategist’s attention from the firm’s resources to the firm’s core competence as the fundament of competitive advantage of the firm. They offered the resources leverage and coopetition as the ways to increase the resource mobility of the firm. But the work of A. Branderburger and B. Nalebuff imported the clarity into the understanding of the successful strategy nature through the examples of the leading world companies. The structure of Five Forces Model assumes that to build win strategy it’s possible and recommended to unite the efforts with the other forces – customers, suppliers, companies-substitutes. But A. Branderburger and B. Nalebuff offered to go further and to unite with the competitors. This revolutionary mindset was named as «co-opetition» or «coopetition» as it combines cooperation and competition at the same time. While the companies compete at the markets, they cooperate in one or more elements of Value Chain to get the technology breakthrough. According to Open Innovation Model by H.W. Chesbrough it is the innovations diffusion required to keep the core competence or value. Conclusions and directions of futher researches. The generalization of the theories was made that allowed constructing the comparison between concepts, focusing on their usability in modern times. Main scholars of Coopetition Research Schools were presented and the discussion about the coopetition phenomenon has been started in Ukrainian. The perspectives of using Coopetition as a strategy were suggested as one of the most promising alternatives for the industrial development. The cases of the world leading companies were presented in the paper to demonstrate the effectiveness of the coopetition strategy.

Keywords: strategy, strategic management, competition, stakeholder, core competences, value chain, coopetition

JEL Classification: D4, D21, L1, M19.

Cite as: Shvindina, H. (2017). Innovations of strategic management development: from competition to coopetition. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 180-192. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.1-16

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Bulakh, I. V., & Nadtoka, T. B. (2009). Vykorystannia neiro-nechitkoho pidkhodu dlia pobudovy matematychnoi modeli otsinky konkurentospromozhnosti pidpryiemstva [Using fuzzy approach for constructing mathematical models assessing the competitiveness of enterprises]. Naukovi pratsi DonNTU. Seriia: Ekonomichna – DonNTU. Series: Economic, 36 (2), 95-100 [in Ukranian].
2. Grazhevska, N. (2011). Konkurentospromozhnist natsionalnoi ekonomiky v konteksti suchasnoi paradyhmy modernizatsii [Competitiveness of the national economy in the context of the modern paradigm of modernization]. Teoretychni ta praktychni pytannia ekonomiky – The teoretical and practical issues of the economy, 25, 6-13. Retrieved from http://tppe. econom. univ. kiev. ua/data/2011_25/zb25_01. pdf [in Ukranian].
3. Doyle, P. (1999). Menedzhment: stratehiia i taktika [Management: strategy and tactics]. Saint-Petersburg: Piter [in Russian].
4. Katkalo, V.S. (2002). Resursnaia kontseptsiia stratehicheskoho upravleniia: henezis osnovnyh idei i poniatii [The resource strategic management concept: the genesis of the basic ideas and concepts]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburhskoho universiteta. Seriia 8. Menedzhment – Saint-Petersburg University Review. Series 8. Management, (4), 20-42 [in Russian].
5. Kovalska, L.L. (2013). Metodychni pidkhody do analizu i otsiniuvannia konkurentospromozhnosti rehionu [Methodological approaches to the analysis and evaluation of regional competitiveness]. Aktualni problemy ekonomiky – Actual Problems of Economics, (3), 109-124 [in Ukranian].
6. Maljuha, L.M. (2012). Upravlinnia konkurentospromozhnistiu pidpryiemstv na osnovi ekonomiko-matematychnoho modeliuvannia [Enterprise’s competitiveness management on the basis of economic and mathematical modeling]. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Cherkaskoho derzhavnoho tekhnolohichnoho universytetu. Ser.: Ekonomichni nauky – Collected Works of Cherkasy State Technological University. Series: Economics, (32 (1)), 100-103 [in Ukranian].
7. Porter, M. Konkurentnoe preimushchestvo: Kak dostich visokoho rezultata i obespechit eho ustoichivost [Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance]. Moscow: Alpina Business Books [in Russian].
8. Tarnavska, N.P. (2008). Upravlinnia konkurentospromozhnistiu pidpryiemstv: teoriia, metodolohiia, praktyka [Management of competitiveness of enterprises: the theory, methodology, practice]. Ternopil: Ekonomichna dumka [in Ukrainian].
9. Shpotov, B. (2001). O sovremennykh teoriiakh konkurentnykh preimuschestv i otraslevoho lidirovaniia [About modern competition theories and industry leadership]. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniia – The Problems of Theory and Practices of Management, (3), 50-55. Retrieved from http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19536423 [in Russian].
10. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long range planning, 44(3), 179-196 [in English]
11. Andrews, K. (1987). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill [in English].
12. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). «Coopetition» in business Networks – to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management, 29(5), 411-426 [in English].
13. Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition dynamics – an outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness review: An international business journal, 20(2), 194-214 [in English].
14. Brandenburger, A.M., & Nalebuff, B.J. (1996). Co-opetition. Currency Doubleday: New York [in English].
15. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long range planning, 43(2), 354-363 [in English].
16. Czakon, W., Mucha-Kus, K., & Rogalski, M. (2014). Coopetition Research Landscape-a Systematic Literature Review 1997-2010. Journal of Economics & Management, 17, 121-150 [in English].
17. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Boston : Pitman [in English].
18. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of international political economy, 12(1), 78-104 [in English].
19. Gnyawali, D.R., & Park, B.J.R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663 [in English].
20. Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review, 33(3), 114-135 [in English].
21. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Press [in English].
22. Heiets, I.O., & Tanchyk, V.V. (2015). Evaluation of the coopetition level of oneworld. Promising problems of economics and management: Collection of scientific articles. Montreal, Canada, 13-17 [in English].
23. Hillman, A.J., & Keim, G.D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic management journal, 22(2), 125-139 [in English].
24. Hunt, R. (1937). Co-Opetition. Los Angeles Times, November, 20, 4-9 [in English].
25. Lecocq, X., & Yami, S. (2002). From value chain to value networks: towards a new strategic model. Network Knowledge in International Business. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 9-27 [in English].
26. Le Roy, F., & Fernandez, A-S. (2015). Managing Coopetitive Tensions at the Working-group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team. British Journal of Management, 26, 671-688 [in English].
27. Le Roy, F., & Yami, S. (2007). Les stratégies de coopétition. Revue française de gestion, 7, 83-86 [in French].
28. Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40 (1), 71-90 [in English].
29. Mansell, S.F. (2013). Capitalism, corporations and the social contract: A critique of stakeholder theory. Cambridge University Press. research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk. Retrieved from https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/8335/Rejoinder_to_ Veldman_accepted_version.pdf [in English].
30. Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept Five Ps for strategy. California management review, 30(1), 11-24 [in English].
31. Shvindina, H.O., & Perfileva, O.O. (2015). The corporate social responsibility management at HEI: what strategy to choose? Promising problems of economics and management: Collection of scientific articles. Montreal, Canada, 320-324 [in English].
32. Sturgeon, T., Humphrey, J., & Gereffi, G. (2011). Making the global supply base. The market makers: How retailers are reshaping the global economy, 231-254 [in English].
33. Svendsen, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business relationships. Berrett-Koehler Publishers [in English].
34. UNCTAD, Global Value Chains. (2013). Investment and Trade for Development. World Investment Report. unctad.org. Retrieved from unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2013_en.pdf [in English].