How Does Centrality in Coopetition Networks Matter - Literature review Example

Sanou, F.H., Le Roy, F & Gnyawali, D.R. (2016) ‘How Does Centrality in Coopetition Networks Matter? An Empirical Investigation in the Mobile Telephone Industry’. British Journal of Management. 27 (1), Jan 2016. Pp 143–60. Literature Review Name: Unit: Course: Professor’s name: Submission Date: 1. Introduction Sanou, Le Roy & Gnyawall, (2016, pp143-160) coopetition is where a business employs two fundamental parameters: cooperation and competition at the same time. Coopetition is becoming common due to forces emanating from technologies and products ever-changing nature and the ability to gain access and make use of partner’s resources. Most research in the past did look into coopetition between an inter-firm dyad or two paired firms. There has been increasing curiosity among scholars to examine coopetition via firms in a networked perspective. Many firms are building cooperative linkages with competitors in technology-intensive industries at the end forming cooperative networks. Cooperative networks firms are characterized by accessing learning opportunities regarding their partners and a chance to get resources available in the network. However, constrained by the relationship of being cooperative as cooperation encompassing competing firms, coopetition comes with its risks. Further, the growing demand of coopetitive networks, little is understood regarding the coopetitive networks characteristics. Also, there is little knowledge on whether the structural position of a firm in such networks steers its actions of being competitive. The literature, still has gaps in that it lacks studies on the likely impact of firm’s position in those networks. Sanou and colleaques had one fundamental question to address in reference to coopetition networks. The question sought to understand the position of a firm within a cooperative network and other competitions impacts on its competitive performance and aggressiveness performance. This is fundamental, as competitive involves use of resources that a firm may find within the competitive networks and maximize on them in building a competitive edge as well as benefiting from centrality within the network to increase their power and prestige enabling them to tap and utilize such resources. To ensure substance in their contribution to the coopetition networks issues, the authors did set forward five hypothesis as guiding tools for research authenticity, which may help in addressing the set question in the study, Figure 1. H1: The greater a firm is central within the coopetitve networks the greater its activity of competitive. H2: The greater a firm is central within the coopetitve networks the greater its variety for competitive. H3: The greater a firm is central within the coopetitve networks its market performance is greater as well. H4: The greater a firm’s activity of competitive within the coopetitve networks its market performance is greater as well. H5: The greater a firm’s variety of competitive within the coopetitve networks its market performance is greater as well. Figure 1: Model of research 2. Methodology review Sanou, and colleagues did use empirical research to gather data from the global mobile operator firm. The firm was found significant for the study as it houses a high-technology status with coopetition engaged firms. The firms did include both those in the national market either directly or indirectly. Firms included in the national market in most cases partners with non-alliance firms not in the market because from the alliances they get technologies, knowledge and asset access. From the collaborations firms outside the same national market experience indirect competition offers (Sanou, Le Roy & Gnyawall, 2016, pp143-160). Empirical data is fundamental as it helps in understanding the reality on particular experiences unlike theoretical or use of certain unverified beliefs (Cahoy, 2016 para 1). Further, the use of both indirect and direct competitors is important in helping the authors understand how coopetition networks vary in reference to competitive and performance. The empirical data was gathered in three-steps. The researchers did interview IDATE consultants within the mobile telephony field for 15 minutes-60 minutes session to understand the industry better. From the interviews, 3G Wireless and Global Mobile bi-weekly journals were found to be the best sources of information for the research. World Telecommunication International Data (WTID) was found as an important source for mobile operators’ sectoral data source for many countries, DigiWorld which carries the telecommunication industry’s annual report was another humble ground for important data. New-sectoral information was sourced from the newsletters. The researchers analyzed about 6300 pages on various articles regarding mobile operators. All mobile operators initiated either one or more competitive or cooperative action from 2000-2006 were picked. At the end the method employed helped the researchers identify 193 mobile operators coming from 70 countries. The news reports were taken through a structured content analysis. The researcher’s did code competitive actions and cooperative action identified from 1158 firms. This was done by first research. Random sample of mobile operators in 300 cases was forwarded to another researcher, who was blindfolded on the previous finding to make independent coding from the news reports (Sanou, Le Roy & Gnyawall, 2016, pp143-160). Randomization and blinded research are important in increasing independence of the research process, validity and generalization of results obtained (Explorable.com, 2009). In all actions identified similarity ranged from 62% and above in regards to: service actions, product actions, marketing actions, capacity actions and signaling actions. Measured variables were: coopetitive networks centrality, competitive behavior measures, market performance, and control variables. All variables were fundamental as they were aligned with the hypothesis variables, and control variables would help in eliminating internal and external players that may affect the results. A Linear Mixed Model was employed for hypothesis testing. This was important as it was found to be the best in treating balanced data like same operator’s performance measured for more than one year (Sanou, Le Roy & Gnyawall, 2016, pp143-160) . Chapter 15: Mixed Model, (n.d., p357) the use of LMM is said to be important as it can be employed where a subject is needed to have measurement carried over time or space. Also is practical where there is multiple correlated outcome measures at any given point in time. Since Sanou, and colleague’s research required measurement of various variables for a given period for many telephony coopetitive networked firm’s the LMM remains as fundamental choice. 3. Outcomes The study did bring down its triggers for the topic research; in that despite the increasing popularity on coopetitive networks more so in the high-technology industries, the implications and unique nature of such networks is not explored theoretically. Secondly, the study did not have a picture on the implications of a firm’s position within such networks in the aspects of performance and competitive as no literature addresses these two critical aspects. The results did indicate that all the variables of the five hypothesizes were positively correlated to their predictor variables. The empirical findings gave three key outcomes. First, with centrality both competitive variety and competitive activity increases, as the firm was found to access more resources in regards to diversity and valuability making it more aggressive due to more cooperation with its rivals. The study did find that despite competition between firms within the coopetition networks, the networks enables performance, as there exist a positive resource asymmetry. This was unique as it adds to the existing literature of the significance of coopetition networks centrality and performance. Lastly, the results did indicate that there is a direct connection between competitive aggressiveness with reference to increased competitive market, variety and activity performance. The researchers agrees that the results were fundamental in enriching the competitive dynamic theory as well as opening a door to the importance of coopetitive networks for either direct and in-direct businesses involved in such networks. The research, did actually address the question at hand, drawing from the findings and linking this to the existing literature, and addressing the exiting literature gaps identified in the research’s background. 4. Strengths and Limitations of the article Strengths: Since firm’s centrality within the coopetition networks has not been examined before, the paper enriches this aspects. Further, the paper is not a standalone research, it has explored the existing literature, identified existing gaps that did call for the research. This quantitative research is fundamental, in helping the study answer the question set forth, and test the hypotheses variables to ascertain their approval or disapproval. Due to the fact that performance and competiveness have not received this attention within the coopetition networks, the paper was justified to have a look at the telephony industry which commonly employs these kind of market linkages. Using 1158 firm’s as a study sample is impressive as it increases chance of generalizability of the results. The paper was not without limitations. Limitations The paper first lacks ethics approval a very important aspect in research and which is of emphasizes in the 21st century for any research. The paper was really biased in focusing on the positive aspects of the hypothesis, despite employing random sampling. This is so as in the business world firms are destined to fail or prosper, make losses or profits, ascertaining that with coopetition networks performance, competitiveness improves from all researched firm’s this leaves a question of validity of the information obtained. The paper, would have benefitted from testing centrality of businesses within the coopetition networks, in other industries to ensure generalization. As part of ethics commitment, telephone interviews may lack evident approval on whether the consultants of the firms were ready to respond to the telephone interviews. To ensure anonymous, the survey could be best suited to have used emailed questionnaires decreasing the chances of bias, ensure privacy, and protection of the interviewees. The limitations brought in here were not in anyway addressed as they run through the paper, although in at the end the author recommends further research. Conclusion From the research, coopetition networks are fundamental for every business either directly or indirectly within the networks. However, how a business positions itself within the coopetition networks is important. As a business’s choose to be part of the coopetition networks they need to understand the risks and benefits that come with these networks. In critical review, both the article to review, and existing literature are intertwined and they help expand my critical thinking aspect fundamental as soft skill acquisition for future professional and career growth. Bibliography Cahoy, E.2016. Empirical Researching Education and the Behavioral/Social Sciences. [Online]. http://www.guides.libraries.psu.edu/emp, accessed 11/23/2016. Chapter 15: Mixed Models: A Flexible Approach to Correlated Data, n.d, p357. [Online]. http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/309/Book/chapter15.pdf, accessed 11/23/2016. Exploarable.com, 2009. Probability Sampling and Randomization. [online]. https://explorable.com/probability-sampling, accessed 11/23/2016. Sanou, F.H., Le Roy, F & Gnyawali, D.R. 2016. ‘How Does Centrality in Coopetition Networks Matter? An Empirical Investigation in the Mobile Telephone Industry’. British Journal of Management, 27 (1), Jan 2016. Pp 143–60. Read More