Next Article in Journal
Are Nano-Composite Coatings the Key for Photovoltaic Panel Self-Maintenance: An Experimental Evaluation
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Consumption and Life Cycle Costs of Overhead Catenary Heavy-Duty Trucks for Long-Haul Transportation
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

What Makes Coopetition Successful? An Inter-Organizational Side Analysis on Coopetition Critical Success Factors in Oil and Gas Distribution Networks

Department of Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania
Department of Marketing, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania
Department of Informatics, Statistics, Mathematics, Romanian-American University, 012101 Bucharest, Romania
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2018, 11(12), 3447;
Received: 3 October 2018 / Revised: 30 November 2018 / Accepted: 7 December 2018 / Published: 9 December 2018


This paper investigates the inter-organizational Critical Success Factors for coopetition in oil and gas distribution networks. Based on an extensive review of literature, 17 Critical Success Factors were identified and analyzed in the context of oil and gas distribution industry. We concluded that Trust, Outcomes, Outcomes distribution and Tension have the greatest impact on coopetition success within business networks, while Congruence, Governance, Inter-dependence and Equity, even though significant, have the lowest impact. The study contributes to the development of literature concerning Critical Success Factors in business networks by presenting an inter-organizational perspective, by providing a ranking of them, and by discussing the implications for oil and gas distribution companies.

1. Introduction

Coopetition has received increasing attention in the academic literature in recent decades [1,2,3,4,5]. Considered a type of inter-organizational cooperation, coopetition is defined as the simultaneous cooperation and competition between competitors [6,7]. Even though it is most frequently analysed in the context of relationships between companies [8,9], there are also analyses of cooperation and competition at the intra-organizational level, with a distinct focus on business networks [2,6,10].
At the inter-organizational level, the coopetition phenomenon is analysed in the context of strategic alliances [11,12], and networks theories [6,13,14,15]. However, despite the studies that make it possible to explore the complexity of coopetition, the state of knowledge about this phenomenon is still underdeveloped [16].
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) constitute one such element. Various CSFs are discussed in the literature, factors that determines, influence or are critical for coopetition success [5,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. However, the body of literature is still small, and the findings are rather eclectic and usually not empirically tested.
This study seeks to provide answers to two main research questions:
What are the Critical Success Factors for coopetition in oil and gas distribution networks? and
What are the most important of them?
There are several reasons that motivate this study: (a) first of all, there has been an increased interest in studying coopetition in the last decades [26,27,28], which, along other industries, may shape the oil and gas industry in the future; (b) secondly, studies focused on coopetition in the oil and gas industry are very scarce in the literature [5]; (c) Romania had and still has an important oil and gas industry; (d) the success or failure of oil and gas distribution networks may depend on adequate identification and consideration of CSFs. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to increase understanding of coopetition Critical Success Factors in terms of their identification from inter-organizational side in networks from oil and gas distribution industry and by providing a ranking of them. By doing so, the paper may prove useful for decision-makers from oil and gas distribution companies, who are involved or planning to get involved in networks, or are already members, to foster those factors which are more important than others in the overall success of the business network. It is also useful for network coordination bodies to act on making their working arrangement better by supporting or developing those formal and informal internal mechanisms able to contribute more to the overall success.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 1 provides an introduction on the subject; Section 2 reviews the literature by discussing the existing findings in terms of coopetition within networks, with a distinct focus on the inter-organizational coopetition, and by presenting the theoretical foundations of the paper, namely the results of the few existing studies analysing coopetition CSFs; Section 3 presents the materials and methods of the study; Section 4 presents the results, including the ranking of the CSFs; finally, Section 5 discusses the results and draw the conclusions.

2. Literature Review

Although coopetition can exist on many different levels, from individuals to organizations and networks, it is generally considered to be common between companies [6,7,26,27,29]. The current focus in the literature has been to manage the tensions resulting from coopetition [30,31,32], to systemize the existing knowledge about inter-organizational coordination of coopetitive interactions [33,34] or to measure varying degrees of competitive and cooperative interactions [7,26,35].
Partners within business networks may engage in coopetition due to the occurrence of perceived or potential benefits [36,37,38]. These include gaining access to complementary or additional resources from partners [39] or achieving synergy effects due to complementarity of resources [40]. Coopetition also stimulates innovation between partners [41], the development of technology [42,43], and may facilitate joint creation of tangible and intangible assets [44]. Moreover, it allows companies to achieve economies of scale [11], and reduces operational costs [36,45] and risks [46], contributing to the creation of value for them [47] and their partners [12].
However, there are threats and risks related to coopetitive interactions in business networks. The nature of coopetition, comprising a competitive dimension alongside the cooperative one, may increase the opportunistic behaviour of the companies involved [48], may determine leakage of information or other intangible assets [49], or may narrow the opportunities for cooperation with others [50]. Other scholars highlight the above-average costs of coopetition [51], and the high expenses related to alliance management or time costs [52]. As a consequence, the coopetitive relationship may become a liability for partners’ survival [50].
Regarding inter-organizational coopetition within networks, a common approach, used in the current study, is the relational approach, focusing on the relationships between various actors which jointly create value for themselves and for other network members [36,47,53,54]. Studies on coopetition indicate that in many industries competition and cooperation increasingly move from the inter-firm level towards coopetition within and between networks [55].
Inter-organizational coopetition at network level usually occurs in clusters or distribution networks, where the concentration of companies generates dynamic relationships between interconnected actors, with varying levels of cooperation and competition intensity. There are scholars [56] emphasizing the role of coopetition on knowledge acquisition and value creation, while others [13] argue that firms’ positions within a network influence their coopetitive behaviour. Three prerequisites have to be met to engage in inter-organizational coopetition within a network: complementary resources, compatible network structures, and a balance of competition and cooperation [15,22], while the purpose is to reduce the competitive intensity [57]. However, these must be approached with caution, since they may change over time, whenever the market conditions and the internal needs associated with coopetition change [58].
Companies participating in coopetitive processes need adequate governance mechanisms as a basis for their cooperation [59]. Therefore, the coordination of partners within a business network, implying various degrees of formality, has a critical role in managing competitive interactions. Still, informal coordination mechanisms may be equally efficient for determining how joint activities must be conducted. Communication is also important, with one study reaching divergent conclusions in the case of competition for tangible and intangible resources [60]. Finally, other scholars discuss coopetition as an effective approach to create value [55,61,62] for each network member.
One typical example of coopetition within networks is the case of supply chain networks, with a number of studies finding that the incidence of this phenomenon has increased in recent years [63,64,65]. Various studies have investigated how a company can use its local supplier network to develop new organizational capabilities to balance competition and cooperation [64], or the role of coopetition for knowledge creation within the supplier network [65]. Little research has been conducted on the influence that coopetition has on network outcomes. One such study [66] examines how competition influences the structure of the network.
There are very few studies specifically analysing Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for coopetition at network level. Most existent studies investigate aspects related to the management and shaping of coopetitive relationships or how tensions in business networks can be managed [6,13,15,32]. The feasibility of coopetitive relationships is also investigated in relationship with the network members’ capacity to create better results than those available through individual operation [67]. Another stream of research focuses on identification of efficient forms of coopetition based on the motives of the partners [68]. Finally, separation of competitive and cooperative fields within network members is another topic discussed by various studies [6,15].
The congruence in terms of common goals, coupled with the compatibility of network members, may also prove important, requiring procedures and mechanisms that need to be established and managed according to the need and requirements [69], such as establishing the criteria to select the partners with the purpose of identifying their value-adding potential [35,70] or complementarity in terms of processes, competencies and resources [22,23,71]. The conclusion of these studies is that there are no standard behaviours for inter-organizational relationships to be successful [72].
Dorn et al. (2016) [22], in their framework of coopetition phases, provide a list of items important in coopetitive relationships. At the inter-firm level, for initiation, managing, shaping, and evaluation phases, these are: (1) Agreement form, consisting of both (a) formal and (b) informal agreements; (2) Structural design, including (a) assignment of partner-specific tasks; (b) structural separation vs. integration of competitive and cooperative aspects; (3) Setup of relational mechanisms and routines, consisting of (a) workshops and events and (b) incentive policies; (4) Balancing cooperation and competition, comprising (a) typologies of coopetition relationships; (b) balancing cooperation and competition within alliance portfolios and (c) external parties establishing a balance; (5) Dynamics over time consists of (a) changes in market power and competitive behaviour of firms; (b) continuous adjustment of mechanisms and structures; (6) Managing tension and conflict, including (a) sources of conflict; (b) managerial attitudes toward coopetition and (c) establishing a strong partnership attitude; (7) Firm characteristics, consisting of (a) influence of coopetition on the firms’ structure; (b) influence on firms’ abilities; (c) technological and (d) business-model innovation; (e) positive outcome with regard to financials and value creation; and (8) Industry characteristics, which includes (a) increased value for consumers and (b) influence on the industry characteristics.
Ceptureanu et al. (2018) [5] identify several factors related to coopetition success, but do not label them as such. These factors include Intensity, Functionality, Formalism, Benefits, Tension and Stability factors, encompassing items like Number of partners, Behaviour, Value creation, Objectives, Structure, Contract, Trust, Trust evolution, Benefits distribution, Coopetitive tension, Opportunism and Performance. Some of these factors were included in the conceptual model of this paper as such; others were adapted due to a different classification of Critical Success Factors.
Petter et al. (2014) [20] and, further, de Resende et al. [24] identified 18 critical success factors which determine the coopetitive performance in horizontal business networks, grouped in 2 categories: (1) inter-relationship and (2) internal factors. In terms of inter-relationship factors, these are Trust and commitment, Complementarity and reciprocity (synergy), Exchange of experiences and learning, History and identity (culture), Sharing and equity, Management of conflicts and incompatibilities, Competitive cooperation, Standardization, Adaptability and alignment, Interdependence and heteronomy, and Governance and Externalities.
Another study, by Chin et al. (2008) [21], developed a hierarchical model consisting of the following success factors: (1) Management commitment, which comprises Leadership, Long-term commitment and organizational learning, (2) Relationship development, which comprises Trust, Knowledge and Risk sharing, and (3) Communication, comprising IT support and Conflict management.
Finally, one last study [73] used 3 categories of variables: (1) Partnering context, which includes Cooperative context, Shared values, Mutual trust, Awareness on advantages by partnering, Strength of partnering, Competitive context, Complementarity level, Intra-sectorial competitiveness level, Internal competitiveness level and External competitiveness level; (2) Partnering behaviour, consisting of Cooperation degree, Integrated management in the sector, Participatory planning and Central management of projects; and (3) Partnering results, including Number of inter-organizational private programs in the sector, Number of inter-organizational public-private programs in the sector, Number of inter-organizational regional programs in the sector, Number of inter-organizational programs for innovation in the sector, Number of inter-organizational programs for co-creation of value in the sector and Number of co-marketing actions in the sector.
Some of these studies include external CSFs, such as systemic and sectorial factors, which could influence both cooperation and competition. Due to various legal and economic landscapes shaping oil and gas distribution in different countries, these were not considered in the study, even though they may have a role in the network success.

3. Materials and Methods

The first stage, or research design, required a comprehensive review of the literature regarding inter-organizational coopetition Critical Success Factors. This stage led to the identification of 17 CSFs (Table 1), which were further reviewed, in the second stage, by 4 experts: 2 from the oil and gas industry and 2 from academia. Our initial identification of CSFs was endorsed by experts, which accepted all of them for the questionnaire phase of the study.
Measurement scale and descriptors for the selected Critical Success Factors are described in Table 2.
The second phase consisted of distributing the questionnaires in 3 networks from oil and gas distribution industry. The selected companies from the networks had to fulfil two criteria: to participate in at least one coopetition relationship with a partner from the network, regardless of whether the outcome was positive or negative; and to participate in a coopetitive relationship with a company outside of the network. This was to make it easier for respondents to identify those factors which were more important for coopetition within the network, by having the respondents experiencing both internal and external coopetitive processes.
Data were analysed by means of statistical methods (mean, variance and t-test), which were run in SPSS 13 to validate and rank the important Critical Success Factors (Table 3).
Cronbach’s α is commonly used to measure internal consistency [141]. Table 4 shows the estimation of the reliability according to Cronbach’s coefficient α for the constructs. All of them are acceptable and satisfactory [142]. Therefore, the results derived from the questionnaire were highly stable and consistent.
All items considered had factor loadings of 0.65 or higher, which was the acceptable threshold for samples of our size [143], thereby indicating satisfactory levels of convergence and discriminant validity.

4. Data Analysis and Results

For each of the Critical Success Factors, the null hypothesis H0 was:
Hypothesis H0.
The average score of Critical Success Factor importance is lower than 3.
While the alternative hypothesis H1 was:
Hypothesis H1.
The average score of Critical Success Factor importance is higher than 3.
The results of the t-tests for each item are presented in Table 5. All tests were calculated at 95 per cent confidence level (α = 0.05). The t-test rejected the null hypotheses for all items. Hence, the importance of the Critical Success Factors was recognized to be significant.
The list of the Critical Success Factors includes Tension, Trust, Long-term commitment, Synergy, Equity, Cooperation, Inter-dependence, Cohesion, Antecedents, Congruence, Capabilities, Intensity, Management, Governance, Standardization, Outcomes and Outcomes distribution.
According to each category of Critical Success Factors, the results are detailed below (Table 6).
According to each category of Critical Success Factors, the results are detailed below:
In terms of Stability:
  • Tension (ranked 4th), comprising Conflict resolution mechanisms within the network, Conflict monitoring procedures, Incompatibilities resolution in the network and Administration of internal conflicts between network members is, according to the results, the most important coopetition Critical Success Factor. A recurring theme in coopetition literature, since tensions and conflicts are likely to occur due to the sometimes conflicting roles of the partners [2], tensions are perceived as a natural consequence of coopetitive relationships that need to be balanced [144,145]. Hence, managing tension is necessary to maintain a successful coopetitive relationship, enhancing network members’ capacity to deal with any potential conflict before it escalates [146].
  • Trust (ranked 1st), comprising Formal vs informal interactions, Affinity and Risk sharing, proves to be an important Critical Success Factor, since it is an essential element for building a collaborative relationship. A high level of trust reduces conflicts and causes higher partner satisfaction [147] and enhances cooperative behaviour [96]. Hence, the development of trust is important to maintain cooperation between companies in the network which are simultaneously competitors. Therefore, these companies have to pay attention to interaction intensity, namely number of partners within the network they engage with. Affinity, namely the number of interactions with each member of the network, may prove important for network success since a higher number of interactions is a proof of trust between coopetitors and a signal they are interested in network survivability and development.
  • Long-term commitment (ranked 9th), comprising Long-term agreements and Periodic review of existing agreements, is a signal of how reliable a partnership is with other network members, enhancing legitimacy or neutralizing possible conflicts [40]. Long-term agreements let organizations work together toward achieving strategic objectives [148], but these require periodic review of existing agreements to maintain collaboration [149].
In terms of Functionality:
  • Synergy (ranked 11th), consisting of Integration of mutual strengths and weaknesses, Complementarity and Investments in network and, emphasize the focus of each member of a network to adopt the other’s strengths to achieve a synergy effect and a long-term cooperative relationship [40] by developing a deeper understanding and enhancement of their relationship within the network. Network members should take into consideration, also, their complementarity in terms of what their roles are and how involved they are in terms of investments made in the network, since coopetition is often characterized both by improvisation, flexibility and creativity, along routinization and control [150].
  • Equity (ranked 17th), consisting of Balanced rights, Balanced duties and responsibilities and Reciprocity, the least important CSF, described the need to avoid tension and possible conflicts within the network. This is achieved by providing balanced (not equal) rights for network members, since the place of each company (its centrality within the network) determines its duties and responsibilities. In terms of reciprocity, it is important since it may be a reason to reduce trust between network members or even provide a rationale to leave the network if the company considers its role does not match the efforts.
  • Cooperation (ranked 7th), consisting of Sharing of assets, Control of rivalry and Removing cooperation limitations, brings forward the balance between competitive and cooperative forces. The forces that shape coopetition are multiple, since the relationship is complex, relying on various factors [26]. Therefore, it is crucial to first examine the appropriate levels of cooperation and competition and the factors that influence them [151,152]. Gnyawali et al. (2006) [13] used a competitive dynamics perspective exploring the roots for network-level coopetition, and found that the firms’ position within a network—such as whether it is more autonomous or central—influences its competitive action frequency and variety.
  • Inter-dependence (ranked 16th), consisting of Autonomy in operations and Mutual dependence between network members is among the least important CSFs. Firms can form networks between unequal partners, where at least one partner is more powerful than the others. In oil and gas distribution, this is usually the case, with the more powerful partner setting up the framework for cooperation [136]. Still, collaboration permits better results than through individual action [153,154].
  • Cohesion (ranked 10th), consisting of Internal cohesion of the network members, Control of opportunistic behaviours and Capacity to manage various expectations and interests, focused on the degree to which team members are attracted to each other [155] while opportunistic behaviour is described by the risk that one of the network members stop cooperating after it gets its desired resources or outcomes [5]. Cohesive entities show a high level of satisfaction and trust one another [156]. Prior research argues that cohesive structures are well coordinated and flexible, and thus perform better under uncertain conditions [157]. Various studies emphasize positive results of cohesion, such as new product performance [155], interpretation of new information [158] or improved communication [159]. This reduces the risks of opportunistic behaviours, also. However, companies should be aware of the risks, since there are scholars arguing that a high level of harmony suppresses necessary creative tensions [160] or may have negative effects on innovativeness [161].
In terms of Network:
  • Antecedents (ranked 6th), consisting of Historical antecedents, Cultural alignment and Previous experience and reputation. In the study, this factor achieved a surprisingly high position, emerging as an important Critical Success Factor. Indeed, there are studies linking previous experience between the firms involved in the coopetition process and the reputation of their interaction with a feeling of greater credibility between those involved [162]. In terms of cultural alignment, one must assume that different organizations have different organizational cultures. In coopetition, respect, understanding, acceptance, integrity and toleration are keys to a successful development of the network organizational culture.
  • Congruence (ranked 14th), consisting of Adaptability, Strategic alignment and Network members similarities describes how consistent relationships are within the network. Therefore, the paces of network members’ adaptability to change, how congruent network goals are with its members’ own objectives and strategies, or the network capacity to manage the various expectations and interests of its members are important factors. To efficiently work together and achieve the expected gains, it has been argued that companies exhibit similar characteristics in terms of their cultures, structures, or processes [163]. Various studies have shown that organizational similarity is an antecedent of trust [164,165,166].
  • Capabilities (ranked 13th) consists of Available resources and Available infrastructure. Little research has been done concerning the capabilities that are necessary to be successful. Despite their importance, the link between dynamic capabilities and coopetition has so far not been explored in depth [167], even though these will become more important in a dynamic and complex environment [168] such as the oil and gas industry. Oil and gas distribution companies should consider developing their organizational ambidexterity, since it provides structural and motivational implications that could be transferred to the management of coopetition as well [169,170].
  • Intensity (ranked 5th), consisting of Degree of interaction, Number of network members and Direction of the relationship, focused on multiple partner arrangements within networks. These arrangements involve specific problems, such as coalition building, higher structural complexity, and partner dynamics [171,172]. The sparse literature on vertical coopetition mainly investigates relationships among buyers and suppliers [173,174] or among the members of a supply chain [65]. Multi-partner arrangements determine more complex control mechanisms, like smart pricing schemes, special contractual provisions [175] or more general incentive structure designs [117]. Numbers of interactions with the same partner or with different partners raise issues in terms of the interests of the involved actors, such as price setting [117], and must not be neglected by oil and gas distribution top executives.
In terms of Management and governance:
  • Management (ranked 8th), consists of Policy and strategy, Resource allocation, Coordination of actions and Effective communication. This factor is important for coopetition because it reflects top management’s attitude towards it [176]. The way network members coordinate their actions is a key factor in the effectiveness and the outcome of coopetitive relationships. The coordination of actions includes partner-specific task assignment [116,177], as well as the specialization and formalization of interactions among network members [15,122].
  • Governance (ranked 12th), consisting of Formalization and Management of relationships external to the network, argue that the existence of separate structures to deal with coopetitive relationships has a positive impact on how effective the coopetitive relationship is [132]. Various cooperative arrangements have been studied by the alliance literature, with scholars finding a variety of contingencies that influence the choice of a distinct cooperative form [178,179].
  • Standardization (ranked 15th) consists of Mechanisms of management and control and Network standardization covers elements like structural designs, and sets of relational mechanisms and routines that impact a coopetitive relationship [58,114,121]. In this respect, flexibility seems to be an important parameter [44,58]. Future inter-firm-level research should build on these findings and adapt them to the specific coopetition context. Hakansson and Ford (2002) [72] point out that there are no standardized behaviours or a single solution for alliances to be successful, and that some factors have a greater or lower influence on the success of the business networks.
In terms of Results:
  • Outcomes (ranked 2nd) covers a wide range of benefits (results). In our study, these includes Value creation for network, Value creation for network members, Engagement and motivation, Knowledge identification, sharing and use and Collective learning. Most contributions have focused on the advantages of coopetition based on low transaction costs, compatible resources, or enhanced innovative capabilities, and only a few studies have recently started to examine coopetitive arrangements with regard to innovativeness or financial results [46,111,136]. Coopetition research is also concerned with the extent to which coopetitive relationships can create additional value, such as improved processes, enhanced services for consumers, and efficient use of resources. It has often been noted that firms engaging in coopetition are not only able to enhance their own performance, but also increase their customers one [53].
  • Outcomes distribution (ranked 3rd) covers both Perceived fairness of outcomes distribution and Perceived mutual benefits. An important Critical Success Factor, the results are in line with other studies [44,93].

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Scholars focused on researching coopetition interaction have paid little attention to ranking of Critical Success Factors, preferring to address specific elements like tension or outcomes and neglecting analysis on specific industries. This study contributes to filling this gap by identifying the most important CSFs and by ranking them in oil and gas distribution.
The findings allow us to draw several conclusions.
The following factors come in the first category, the most important ones according to their impact. First of all, companies involved in oil and gas distribution networks had to carefully consider Tension in their operations, since it is, according to the study, the most important Critical Success Factor. Tension may be a consequence of coopetitive relationships, so both network coordination bodies and top executives of oil and gas companies have to enhance their own capabilities to deal with any potential conflict. Companies operating in oil and gas distribution networks should pay special attention to establishing, maintaining and adapting conflict resolution mechanisms and conflict monitoring procedures to avoid instances where their actions may be interpreted by other network members as being too competitive or outside their agreements. They have to identify incompatibilities between them and other network members early and try to manage internal conflicts within the network. According to the findings, it would be best to have at least some network level mechanisms and regulatory bodies to supervise and enforce network rules to ease tension among its members. The focus of many respondents on Outcomes and Outcomes distribution is natural. The majority of companies involved in networks or in coopetitive arrangements are seeking results. For oil and gas companies, equally important is not only the level of outcomes, but also how these outcomes are distributed within the network. Without a doubt, how the results are distributed is influenced by many factors—equity within the network, level of governance and standardisation, trust between partners—but network leaders or initiators have to pay attention to a balanced distribution of results, since marginal members may feel prone to leave the alliance if the perceived and to the actual outcomes seems unfair. In terms of Trust, for oil and gas distribution companies it is a prerequisite to get involved in coopetitive relationships. They have multiple choices in choosing their partners, so getting involved in a network first and in coopetitive relationships later signals that the level of trust between them has to be high. Intensity in the coopetitive relationship ranking is determined by the importance of multi-partner arrangements in oil and gas distribution industry. It simultaneously allows the companies to act in a concerted way, for instance, in establishing smart pricing schemes or price setting, and must not be neglected by top executives. Oil and gas distribution company executives seem to link coopetition success to previous antecedents, since the reputation of their partners or previous business connections, without being members of the same network, may be a reason to join that specific network in the first place. In line with this, they have to be fully aware that working together to support a mutual network culture may prove fruitful in terms of success. These were the most important CSFs in terms of impact.
The next round of CSFs comes in the second category of importance. Cooperation, emphasizing measures taken within the network to balance competitive and cooperative forces, provides mixed results due to various levels of cooperation and competition displayed by the surveyed companies. By following the rationale put forward by Gnyawali et al. (2006) [13], it seems that each company’s position in the network provide more or fewer incentives to get involved in various degrees of cooperation with network members. Management as a Critical Success Factor, reflecting the top management attitude toward the coopetition, is, up to a point, included in the network management mechanisms. Therefore, since it overlaps, in part, with already-existent structures and mechanisms, it may look less important, even though in the surveyed literature it is considered an important Critical Success Factor. Long-term commitment ranking comes as a surprise, since it is one of the main results of trust. For oil and gas distribution companies, we can speculate that, due to the dynamic nature of the industry, long-term agreements are less desirable, since the companies are more independent than in other industries. This has to be considered in relationship with other, this time low-ranking, CSFs: Congruence and Inter-dependence. Cohesion seems equally important and less important for surveyed companies due to the somehow contradictory factors considered. There is definitely opportunistic behaviour in the industry, due to high profits and market opportunities available, causing some network members to consider their interests first; however, they also seems to acknowledge the importance of acting together to maximize the outcome. In terms of Synergy, oil and gas distribution companies should take into consideration the complementarity of network members in terms of what their roles are and how involved they are in terms of investments made in the network, since coopetition is often characterized both by improvisation, flexibility and creativity, along routinization and control.
Finally, the last 5 factors come in the third category, the least important in terms of impact. In terms of Governance, oil and gas distribution companies neither tend to establish specific structures to manage coopetitive relationships, nor focus on managing external relationships. The most likely cause is that the network itself, through internal mechanisms, facilitates setting up a framework for coopetitive relationships among network members and deals with external relationships as a whole. At the same time, oil and gas distribution companies seem reluctant to invest in developing network Capabilities by making available resources and infrastructure. This, in turn, reduces the Congruence at the network level. Another finding is that the surveyed companies do not emphasize Standardisation, do not follow specific patterns in terms of acting with other partners within network, and do not follow the same organizational routines, for instance. Coupled with the poor ranking of Inter-dependence, it all makes sense. In our opinion, top executives of oil and gas distribution companies do not want to get too involved in a network, losing autonomy in operations. Considering that in most networks there is a limited number of companies setting up the pace—usually the initiators—we may conclude that there is no deep integration of companies in the network, but rather a balanced involvement based on results.
From a practical point of view, concentrating on the most important Critical Success Factors may provide useful coordinates for top executives in the oil and gas distribution industry as a whole, but particularly for those involved in business network for focusing on those factors which are more important in the successful result of their initiative.
In terms of research limitations, the most important were: (1) contradictory or imprecise meaning or descriptors of Critical Success Factors found in the literature; (2) multidimensionality of most of the CSFs, making difficult for us to include them in specific categories. Moreover, some of them influences others, increasing the difficulty of analysing them; (3) focus of the study on a limited number of business networks, only 3 in this case. However, due to the exploratory nature of the study and considering other studies relevant to the topic, we argue that the findings are important and contribute to fill a research gap in the coopetition field.
In terms of future research, a confirmatory study on a larger sample of companies may be performed. Another direction is to investigate the impact of each Critical Success Factor on various constructs of coopetition process.

Author Contributions

S.I.C., E.G.C. and V.R. designed the study. S.I.C., E.G.C. and V.R. conducted the literature review. S.I.C. and E.G.C. developed the questionnaire and analysed the data. S.I.C., E.G.C. and V.R. interpreted the results. S.I.C., E.G.C. and S.A.I. wrote the final version of the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Ghobadi, S.; D’Ambra, J. Coopetitive relationships in cross-functional software development teams: How to model and measure? J. Syst. Softw. 2012, 85, 1096–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. “Coopetition” in business networks—To cooperate and compete simultaneously. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Padula, G.; Dagnino, G.B. Untangling the rise of coopetition: The intrusion of competition in a cooperative game structure. Int. Stud. Manag. Org. 2007, 37, 32–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lindstrom, T.; Polsa, P. Coopetition close to the customer—A case study of a small business network. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 53, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ceptureanu, E.G.; Ceptureanu, S.I.; Olaru, M.; Bogdan, V.L. An exploratory study on coopetitive behavior in oil and gas distribution. Energies 2018, 11, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gnyawali, D.R.; Madhavan, R. Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Luo, Y. Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. J. World Bus. 2005, 40, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bonel, E.; Rocco, E. Coopeting to survive; surviving coopetition. Int. Stud. Manag. Org. 2007, 37, 70–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L.; Varsei, M. Coopetition as a potential strategy for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2017, 26, 1029–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cygler, J. Co-opetition in network relationships between businesses. Org. Manag. 2010, 1, 59–71. [Google Scholar]
  11. Vaidya, S. Understanding strategic alliances: An integrated framework. J. Manag. Policy Pract. 2011, 12, 90–100. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lechner, C.; Soppe, B.; Dowling, M. Vertical coopetition and sales growth of young and small firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2016, 54, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gnyawali, D.R.; He, J.; Madhavan, R. Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. J. Manag. 2006, 32, 507–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lechner, C.; Dowling, M.; Welpe, I. Firm networks and firm development: The role of the relational mix. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 514–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peng, T.-J.; Bourne, M. The coexistence of competition and cooperation between networks: Implications from two Taiwanese healthcare networks. Br. J. Manag. 2009, 20, 377–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Soppe, B.; Lechner, C.; Dowling, M. Vertical coopetition in entrepreneurial firms: Theory and practice. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2014, 21, 548–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S.; Lundgren-Henriksson, E.L.; Näsholm, M.H. Coopetition research in theory and practice: Growing new theoretical, empirical, and methodological domains. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 57, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Besser, T.L.; Miller, N. The structural, social, and strategic factors associated with successful business networks. Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 2011, 23, 113–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hoffmann, W.H.; Schlosser, R. Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium-sized enterprises—An empirical survey. Long Range Plan. 2001, 34, 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Petter, R.R.H.; de Resende, L.M.; de Andrade Júnior, P.P.; Horst, D.J. Systematic review: An analysis model for measuring the coopetitive performance in horizontal cooperation networks mapping the critical success factors and their variables. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2014, 53, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chin, K.S.; Chan, B.L.; Lam, P.K. Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2008, 108, 437–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dorn, S.; Schweiger, B.; Albers, S. Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moeller, K. Partner selection, partner behavior, and business network performance: An empirical study on German business networks. J. Account. Org. Chang. 2010, 6, 27–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Resende, L.M.M.; Volski, I.; Betim, L.M.; de Carvalho, G.D.G.; de Barros, R.; Senger, F.P. Critical success factors in coopetition: Evidence on a business network. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 68, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Walley, K. Coopetition: An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. Int. Stud. Manag. Org. 2007, 37, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bengtsson, M.; Eriksson, J.; Wincent, J. Co-opetition dynamics—An outline for further inquiry. Compet. Rev. 2010, 20, 194–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mariani, M.M. Coopetition as an emergent strategy: Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera houses. Int. Stud. Manag. Org. 2007, 37, 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, M.-J. Reconceptualizing the competition–cooperation relationships: A transparadox perspective. J. Manag. Inquiry 2008, 17, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fernandez, A.-S.; Chiambaretto, P. Managing tensions related to information in coopetition. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 53, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Raza-Ullah, T.; Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Tidstrom, A. Managing tensions in coopetition. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gnyawali, D.R.; Madhavan, R.; He, J.; Bengtsson, M. The competition-cooperation paradox in inter-firm relationships: A conceptual framework. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 53, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mariani, M.M. Coordination in inter-network co-opetitition: Evidence from the tourism sector. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 53, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Park, B.J.R.; Srivastava, M.K.; Gnyawali, D.R. Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lado, A.A.; Boyd, N.G.; Hanlon, S.C. Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 110–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nygaard, A.; Dahlstrom, R. Role of stress and effectiveness in horizontal alliances. J. Market. 2002, 66, 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Das, T.K.; Rahman, N. Determinants of partner opportunism in strategic alliances: A conceptual framework. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Silverman, B.S.; Baum, J.A.C. Alliance-based competitive dynamics. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 791–806. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zineldin, M. Co-opetition: The organisation of the future. Market. Intell. Plan. 2004, 22, 780–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ritala, P. Coopetition strategy—When is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ahuja, G. The duality of collaboration: Introducing and opportunities in the formation of inter-firm linkage. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gnyawali, D.R.; Park, B.-J.R. Coopetition in technological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2009, 47, 308–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luo, Y. A coopetition perspective of global competition. J. World Bus. 2007, 42, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Le Roy, F.; Sanou, F.H. Does coopetition strategy improve market performance? An empirical study in mobile phone industry. J. Econ. Manag. 2014, 17, 63–94. [Google Scholar]
  46. Luo, X.; Rindfleisch, A.; Tse, D.K. Working with rivals: The impact of competitor alliances on financial performance. J. Market. Res. 2007, 44, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ritala, P.; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. What’s in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-related coopetition. Technovation 2009, 29, 819–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dowling, M.J.; Roering, W.D.; Carlin, B.A.; Wisniewski, J. Multifaced relationships under coopetition. Description and theory. J. Manag. Inquiry 1996, 5, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lavie, D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 638–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cygler, J.; Sroka, W.; Solesvik, M.; Dębkowska, K. Benefits and Drawbacks of Coopetition: The Roles of Scope and Durability in Coopetitive Relationships. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ritala, P.; Hallinkas, J.; Sissonen, H. The effect of strategic alliances between key competitors on firm performance. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2008, 6, 179–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Morris, M.H.; Kocak, A.; Ozer, A. Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. J. Small Bus. Strateg. 2007, 18, 35–55. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brandenburger, A.M.; Nalebuff, B.J. Co-Opetition; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  54. Levy, M.; Loebbecke, C.; Powell, P. SMEs, coopetition and knowledge sharing: The role of information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2003, 12, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ritala, P.; Golnam, A.; Wegmann, A. Coopetition-based business models: The case of Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Song, D.; Lee, E.-S. Coopetitive networks, knowledge acquisition and maritime logistics value. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2012, 15, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, K.H. Cooperative or competitive in alliance formation: Alliance patterns with respect to rivals. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2016, 34, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hung, S.-W.; Chang, C.-C. A co-opetition perspective of technology alliance governance modes. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 24, 679–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Schmoltzi, C.; Wallenburg, C.M. Operational governance in horizontal cooperations of logistics service providers: Performance effects and the moderating role of cooperation complexity. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 48, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hong, J.F.L.; Vai, S. Knowledge-sharing in crossfunctional virtual teams. J. Gener. Manag. 2008, 34, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chou, H.-H.; Zolkiewski, J. Coopetition and value creation and appropriation: The role of interdependencies, tensions and harmony. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 70, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lacoste, S. “Vertical coopetition”: The key account perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pathak, S.D.; Wu, Z.; Johnston, D. Toward a structural view of co-opetition in supply networks. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hong, J.F.L.; Snell, R.S. Developing new capabilities across a supplier network through boundary crossing: A case study of a China-based MNC subsidiary and its local suppliers. Org. Stud. 2013, 34, 377–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wilhelm, M.M.; Kohlbacher, F. Co-opetition and knowledge co-creation in Japanese supplier-networks: The case of Toyota. Asian Bus. Manag. 2011, 10, 66–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Burgers, W.P.; Cromartie, J.S.; Ronnie, D.J. Cooperative competition in global industries: The strategic dimension. Int. Trade J. 1998, 12, 421–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kim, S.; Kim, N.; Pae, J.H.; Yip, L. Cooperate “and” compete: Coopetition strategy in retailer-supplier relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 2013, 28, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yami, S.; Nemeh, A. Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Elbers, W.; Schulpen, L. Decision making in partnerships for development: Explaining the influence of local partners. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2011, 40, 795–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wu, W.Y.; Shih, H.A.; Chan, H.C. The analytic network process for partner selection criteria in strategic alliances. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36 Pt 1, 4646–4653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bravo, G.; Squazzoni, F.; Boero, R. Trust and partner selection in social networks: An experimentally grounded model. Soc. Netw. 2012, 34, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  72. Hakansson, H.; Ford, D. How should companies interact in business networks? J. Bus. Res. 2002, 55, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  73. Chim-Miki, A.F.; Batista-Canino, R.M. Partnering based on coopetition in the interorganizational networks of tourism: A comparison between Curitiba and Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. Rev. Bus. Manag. 2017, 19, 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Oliver, A.L. On the duality of competition and collaboration: Network-based knowledge relationships in the biotechnology industry. Scand. J. Manag. 2004, 20, 151–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fang, S.R.; Chang, Y.S.; Peng, Y.C. Dark side of relationships: A tensions-based view. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2011, 40, 774–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tidstrom, A.; Hagberg-Andersson, A. Critical events in time and space when cooperation turns into competition in business relationships. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jiang, X.; Li, Y.; Gao, S. The stability of strategic alliances: Characteristics, factors and stages. J. Int. Manag. 2008, 14, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Luo, Y. Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pansiri, J. The effects of characteristics of partners on strategic alliance performance in the SME dominated travel sector. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lundberg, H. Strategic networks for increased regional competitiveness: Two Swedish cases. Compet. Rev. 2010, 20, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Veal, G.; Mouzas, S. Learning to collaborate: A study of business networks. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 2010, 25, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Näsholm, H.M.; Bengtsson, M. A conceptual model of individual identifications in the context of coopetition. Int. J. Bus. Environ. 2013, 6, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Perks, H. Marketing information exchange mechanisms in collaborative new product development—The influence of resource balance and competitiveness. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lin, G.T.R.; Sun, C.-C. Driving industrial clusters to be nationally competitive. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2010, 22, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Niu, K.-H. Industrial cluster involvement and organizational adaptation: An empirical study in international industrial clusters. Compet. Rev. 2010, 20, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rank, O.N.; Robins, G.L.; Pattison, P.E. Structural Logic of Intraorganizational Networks. Org. Sci. 2010, 21, 745–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zeng, S.X.; Xie, X.M.; Tam, C.M. Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation 2010, 30, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Luo, X.; Deng, L. Do birds of a feather flock higher? The effects of partner similarity on innovation in strategic alliances in knowledge-intensive industries. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 1005–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Osarenkhoe, A. A coopetition strategy—A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation. Bus. Strateg. Ser. 2010, 11, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lin, C.-P.; Lin, H.-M. Maker-buyer strategic alliances: An integrated framework. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 2010, 25, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Adobor, H. Alliances as collaborative regimes: An institutional based explanation of interfirm collaboration. Compet. Rev. 2011, 21, 66–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Peng, T.A. Resource fit in inter-firm partnership: Intellectual capital perspective. J. Intell. Cap. 2011, 12, 20–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gnyawali, D.R.; Park, B.J.R. Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 650–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yamakawa, Y.; Yang, H.; Lin, Z. Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic and environmental fit. J. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mohamed, M.; Stankosky, M.; Murray, A. Applying knowledge management principles to enhance cross-functional team performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 2004, 8, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Doney, P.M.; Cannon, J.P. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J. Market. 1997, 61, 35–51. [Google Scholar]
  97. Carayannis, E.G. Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and organizational cognition: The role of knowledge management. Technovation 1999, 19, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The commitment-trust theory of relationships marketing. J. Market. 1994, 58, 20–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Fang, E. The effect of strategic alliance knowledge complementarity on new product innovativeness in China. Org. Sci. 2010, 22, 158–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vélez, M.L.; Sánchez, J.M.; Álvarez-Dardet, C. Management control systems as inter-organizational trust builders in evolving relationships: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. Account. Org. Soc. 2008, 33, 968–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Caglio, A.; Ditillo, A. A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships: Achievements and future directions. Account. Org. Soc. 2008, 33, 865–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sammarra, A.; Biggiero, L. Heterogeneity and Specificity of Inter-Firm Knowledge Flows in Innovation Networks. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45, 800–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kock, S.; Nisuls, J.; Söderqvist, A. Co-opetition: A source of international opportunities in Finnish SMEs. Compet. Rev. 2010, 20, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Fernandez, A.S.; Le Roy, F.; Gnyawali, D.R. Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 222–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Schiavone, F.; Simoni, M. An experience-based view of co-opetition in R&D networks. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2011, 14, 136–154. [Google Scholar]
  106. Kale, P.; Singh, H. Managing strategic alliances: What do we know now, and where do we go from here? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2009, 23, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sun, P.Y.T.; Anderson, M.H. An examination of the relationship between absorptive capacity and organizational learning, and a proposed integration. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 130–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wu, J. Cooperation with competitors and product innovation: Moderating effects of technological capability and alliances with universities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Provan, K.; Kenis, P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Schmoltzi, C.; Wallenburg, C.M. Horizontal cooperations between logistics service providers: Motives, structure, performance. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 552–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bouncken, R.B.; Kraus, S. Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 2060–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ritala, P.; Sainio, L.-M. Coopetition for radical innovation: Technology, market and business-model perspectives. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Baruch, Y.; Lin, C.-P. All for one, one for all: Coopetition and virtual team performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1155–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zeng, M. Managing the cooperative dilemma of joint ventures: The role of structural factors. J. Int. Manag. 2003, 9, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Tidstrom, A. Causes of conflict in intercompetitor cooperation. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 2009, 24, 506–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chi, L.; Holsapple, C.W.; Srinivasan, C. Competitive dynamics in electronic networks: A model and the case of interorganizational systems. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 7–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gurnani, H.; Erkoc, M.; Luo, Y. Impact of product pricing and timing of investment decisions on Supply chain co-opetition. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 180, 228–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 1999, 14, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ketchen, D.J., Jr. Research on competitive dynamics: Recent accomplishments and future challenges. J. Manag. 2004, 30, 779–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Borders, A.L.; Johnston, W.J.; Rigdon, E.E. Beyond the dyad: Electronic commerce and network perspectives. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2001, 30, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Faems, D.; Janssens, M.; Van Looy, B. Managing the co-operation competition dilemma in R&D alliances: A multiple case study in the advanced materials industry. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2010, 19, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  122. Tsai, W. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Org. Sci. 2002, 13, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Vogel, R.; Güttel, W.H. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 426–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Schilke, O.; Goerzen, A. Alliance management capability: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1192–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Dyer, J.H.; Chu, W. The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Org. Sci. 2003, 14, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nielsen, B.B.; Nielsen, S. Learning and innovation in international strategic alliances: An empirical test of the role of trust and tacitness. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 1031–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Poppo, L.; Zenger, T. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 707–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  128. Poppo, L.; Zhou, K.Z.; Ryu, S. Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Org. Sci. 2008, 19, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Krishnan, R.; Martin, X.; Noorderhaven, N.G. When does trust matter to alliance performance? Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 894–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Birnberg, J. Control in inter-firm co-operative relationships. J. Manag. Stud. 1998, 35, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Boubekri, N. Technology enablers for supply chain management. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 2001, 12, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Anand, B.N.; Khanna, T. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. De Man, A.-P.; Duysters, G. Collaboration and innovation: A review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation. Technovation 2005, 25, 1377–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Bouncken, R.B.; Fredrich, V. Coopetition: Performance implications and management antecedents. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 16, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Chen, M.-J.; Miller, D. Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2012, 6, 135–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Bourreau, M.; Dogan, P. Cooperation in product development and process R&D between competitors. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2010, 28, 176–190. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  137. Hao, M. Toward global competitive advantage: Creation, competition, cooperation, and co-option. Manag. Decis. 2004, 42, 907–924. [Google Scholar]
  138. Lin, Y.-Y.C.; Jing, Z. Changing structures of SME networks: Lessons from the publishing industry in Taiwan. Long Range Plan. 2005, 38, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Khanna, T.; Gulati, R.; Nohria, N. The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kale, P.; Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 747–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  142. Streiner, D.L. Diagnosing tests: Using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. J. Pers. Assess. 2003, 81, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Hair, F.J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  144. Salvetat, D.; Geraudel, M. The tertius roles in a coopetitive context: The case of the European aeronautical and aerospace engineering sector. Eur. Manag. J. 2012, 30, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Lundgren-Henriksson, E.-L.; Kock, S. A sensemaking perspective on coopetition. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 57, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Crawley, J. Constructive Conflict Management; Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  147. Anderson, J.C.; Narus, J.A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J. Market. 1990, 54, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Drucker, P.F. The Effective Executive; HarperCollins Publishers Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  149. Chen, S. Valuing intellectual capital using game theory. J. Intell. Cap. 2003, 4, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Turner, N.; Swart, J.; Maylor, H. Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Lui, S.S.; Ngo, H. An action pattern model of inter-firm cooperation. J. Manag. Stud. 2005, 42, 1123–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Zeng, M.; Chen, X.-P. Achieving cooperation in multiparty alliances: A social dilemma approach alliances to partnership management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 587–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Peng, T.; Punk, S.; Yang, J.; Roos, G. Is cooperation with competitors a good idea? An example in practice. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, 532–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Czernek, K.; Czakon, W. Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Nakata, C.; Im, S. Spurring cross-functional integration for higher new product performance: A group effectiveness perspective. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 554–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. O’Reilly, C.A.; Caldwell, D.F.; Barnett, W.P. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Adm. Sci. Q. 1989, 43, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  157. Ensley, M.D.; Pearson, A.W.; Amason, A.C. Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 365–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Brockman, B.K.; Morgan, R.M. The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decis. Sci. 2003, 34, 385–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Moenaert, R.K.; Souder, W.E.; De Meyer, A.; Deschoolmeester, D. R&D marketing integration mechanisms, communication flows, and innovation success. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1994, 11, 31–45. [Google Scholar]
  160. Dyer, B.; Song, X.M. Innovation strategy and sanctioned conflict: A new edge in innovation? J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1998, 15, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Sethi, R.; Smith, D.; Park, C. Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. J. Market. Res. 2001, 38, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wang, Y.; Fesenmaier, D. Collaborative destination marketing: A case study of Elkhart County. Indiana Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 863–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Saxton, T. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 443–461. [Google Scholar]
  164. Bierly, P.E.; Gallagher, S. Explaining alliance partner selection: Fit, trust and strategic expediency. Long Range Plan. 2007, 40, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Lydeka, Z.; Adomavicius, B. Cooperation among the competitors in international cargo transportation sector: Key factors to Success. Eng. Econ. 2007, 51, 80–90. [Google Scholar]
  166. Dussauge, P.; Garrette, B.; Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 99–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Quintana-García, C.; Benavides-Velasco, C.A. Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: A panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation 2004, 24, 927–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Bouncken, R.B.; Gast, J.; Kraus, S.; Bogers, M. Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2015, 9, 577–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. O’Reilly, C.A.; Tushman, M.L. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 27, 324–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Luo, Y.; Rui, H. An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2009, 23, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Heidl, R.; Phelps, C. The influence of interorganizational embeddedness on multipartner alliance stability. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2010, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Lavie, D.; Lechner, C.; Singh, H. The performance implications of timing of entry and involvement in multipartner alliances. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 578–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Eriksson, P.E. Achieving suitable coopetition in buyer—Supplier relationships: The case of AstraZeneca. J. Bus.-to-Bus. Market. 2008, 15, 425–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Liu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Yang, P.; Maksimov, V. Typology and effects of co-opetition in buyer-supplier relationships: Evidence from the Chinese home appliance industry. Manag. Org. Rev. 2014, 10, 439–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Eriksson, P.E. Procurement effects on coopetition in client-contractor relationships. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Kotzab, H.; Teller, C. Value-adding partnerships and coopetition models in the grocery industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2003, 33, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Bello, D.C.; Katsikeas, C.S.; Robson, M.J. Does accommodating a self-serving partner in an international marketing alliance pay off? J. Market. 2010, 74, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Osborn, R.N.; Baughn, C.C. Forms of inter-organizational governance for multinational alliances. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 503–519. [Google Scholar]
  179. Sampson, R.C. The cost of misaligned governance in R&D alliances. J. Law Econ. Org. 2004, 20, 484–526. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Conceptual framework.
Table 1. Conceptual framework.
CategoryCritical Success FactorReferences
Long-term commitment[5,20,23,40,53,77,78,79,80,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]
Management and governanceManagement[2,15,34,44,58,59,71,104,106,107,113,114,116,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131]
Outcomes distribution[5,44,93,132,133,139,140]
Table 2. Measurement scale and descriptors for Critical Success Factors.
Table 2. Measurement scale and descriptors for Critical Success Factors.
Critical Success FactorDescriptorsMeasurement Scale
Category: Stability
CSF1. TensionConflict resolution mechanisms within the network(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Conflict monitoring procedures(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Incompatibilities resolution in the network(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Administration of internal conflicts between network members(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF2. TrustFormal vs. informal interactions(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Affinity(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Risk sharing(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF3. Long-term commitmentLong-term agreements(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Periodic review of existing agreements(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Category: Functionality
CSF4. SynergyIntegration of mutual strengths and weaknesses(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Complementarity(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Investments in network(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF5. EquityBalanced rights(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Balanced duties and responsibilities(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Reciprocity(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF6. CooperationSharing of assets(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Control of rivalry(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Removing cooperation limitations(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF7. Inter-dependenceAutonomy in operations(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Mutual dependence between network members(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF8. CohesionInternal cohesion of the network members(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Control of opportunistic behaviours(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Capacity to manage various expectations and interests(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Category: Network
CSF9. AntecedentsHistorical antecedents(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Cultural alignment(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Previous experience and reputation(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF10. CongruenceAdaptability(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Strategic alignment(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Network members similarities(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF11. CapabilitiesAvailable resources(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Available infrastructure(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF12. IntensityDegree of interaction(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Number of network members(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Direction of the relationship(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Category: Management and governance
CSF13. ManagementPolicy and strategy(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Resource allocation(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Coordination of actions(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Effective communication(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF14. GovernanceFormalization(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Management of relationships external to the network(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF15. StandardizationMechanisms of management and control(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Network standardization(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Category: Results
CSF16. OutcomesValue creation for network(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Value creation for network members(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Engagement and motivation(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Knowledge identification, sharing and use(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Collective learning(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
CSF17. Outcomes distributionPerceived fairness of outcomes distribution(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Perceived mutual benefits(1) Strongly disagree to (5) Strongly agree
Table 3. The results of the independent sample t-test.
Table 3. The results of the independent sample t-test.
Critical Success FactorMann-Whitney UWilcoxon WZAsymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
Category: Stability
CSF1. Tension3.646511.1205−0.0360.918
CSF2. Trust3.101012.1080−0.3790.651
CSF3. Long-term commitment3.457513.2845−0.5620.519
Category: Functionality
CSF4. Synergy3.568013.6740−0.3480.675
CSF5. Equity3.654513.6225−0.0310.921
CSF6. Cooperation3.259513.2305−0.1350,154
CSF7. Inter-dependence3.278513.1055−0.6720.447
CSF8. Cohesion3.337012.7570−0.6430.465
Category: Network
CSF9. Antecedents3.646510.1185−0.0340.920
CSF10. Congruence3.069012.4790−0.1420.128
CSF11. Capabilities2.913011.2670−0.8620.332
CSF12. Intensity3.024512.8565−0.1440.142
Category: Management and governance
CSF13. Management2.833011.8220−0.1380.145
CSF14. Governance3.354013.0520−0.3740.652
CSF15. Standardization3.502013.1830−0.1570.817
Category: Results
CSF16. Outcomes2.790011.7970−0.2240.021
CSF17. Outcomes distribution3.214013.0450−0.1300.254
Table 4. Scale validation for coopetition CSFs.
Table 4. Scale validation for coopetition CSFs.
Critical Success FactorsItemsFactor Loadings
Category: Stability
CSF1. Tension
Cronbach’s α = 0.721
Conflict resolution mechanisms within the network0.767
Conflict monitoring procedures0.709
Incompatibilities resolution in the network0.652
Administration of internal conflicts between network members0.754
CSF2. Trust
Cronbach’s α = 0.691
Formal vs informal interactions0.689
Risk sharing0.702
CSF3. Long-term commitment
Cronbach’s α = 0.704
Long-term agreements0.744
Periodic review of existing agreements0.663
Category: Functionality
CSF4. Synergy
Cronbach’s α = 0.678
Integration of mutual strengths and weaknesses0.669
Investments in network0.656
CSF5. Equity
Cronbach’s α = 0.705
Balanced rights0.684
Balanced duties and responsibilities0.663
CSF6. Cooperation
Cronbach’s α = 0.697
Sharing of assets0.672
Control of rivalry0.709
Removing cooperation limitations0.709
CSF7. Inter-dependence
Cronbach’s α = 0.720
Autonomy in operations0.756
Mutual dependence between network members0.684
CSF8. Cohesion
Cronbach’s α = 0.712
Internal cohesion of the network members0.712
Control of opportunistic behaviours0.707
Capacity to manage various expectations and interests0.716
Category: Network
CSF9. Antecedents
Cronbach’s α = 0.695
Historical antecedents0.667
Cultural alignment0.706
Previous experience and reputation0.712
CSF10. Congruence
Cronbach’s α = 0.685
Strategic alignment0.711
Network members similarities0.692
CSF11. Capabilities
Cronbach’s α = 0.703
Available resources0.769
Available infrastructure0.683
CSF12. Intensity
Cronbach’s α = 0.682
Degree of interaction0.689
Number of network members0.665
Direction of the relationship0.693
Category: Management and governance
CSF13. Management
Cronbach’s α = 0.740
Policy and strategy0.737
Resource allocation0.709
Coordination of actions0.722
Effective communication0.793
CSF14. Governance
Cronbach’s α = 0.670
Management of relationships external to the network0.652
CSF15. Standardization
Cronbach’s α = 0.725
Mechanisms of management and control0.747
Network standardization0.702
Category: Results
CSF16. Outcomes
Cronbach’s α = 0.724
Value creation for network0.746
Value creation for network members0.806
Engagement and motivation0.712
Knowledge identification, sharing and use0.681
Collective learning0.673
CSF17. Outcomes distribution
Cronbach’s α = 0.818
Perceived fairness of outcomes distribution0.816
Perceived mutual benefits0.819
Table 5. Critical Success Factors t-test.
Table 5. Critical Success Factors t-test.
Critical Success FactortdfSig. (2-Tailed)MeanSDStd. Error Mean95 Per Cent Confidence Interval of the Difference
Category: Stability
CSF1. Tension5.558870.0003.371.160.0750.3110.619
CSF2. Trust3.843680.0003.221.060.0740.1640.468
CSF3. Long-term commitment2.979730.0043.171.200.0780.0980.433
Category: Functionality
CSF4. Synergy3.777850.0003.241.250.0730.1710.509
CSF5. Equity4.080780.0003.231.080.0710.1790.472
CSF6. Cooperation6.193810.0023.441.180.0770.3810.705
CSF7. Inter-dependence8.783840.0013.551.010.0750.3230.787
CSF8. Cohesion3.706780.0003.211.160.0770.1550.469
Category: Network
CSF9. Antecedents8.228750.0003.721.070.0710.4740.865
CSF10. Congruence5.177700.0033.321.080.0730.2730.573
CSF11. Capabilities8.931790.0003.711.130.0750.4990.806
CSF12. Intensity4.136650.0003.261.110.0780.1970.518
Category: Management and governance
CSF13. Management7.238770.0003.531.170.0790.4790.804
CSF14. Governance3.187820.0023.141.050.0780.1020.383
CSF15. Standardization4.037740.0003.241.140.0780.1850.501
Category: Results
CSF16. Outcomes2.896760.0063.161.190.0720.0900.422
CSF17. Outcomes distribution6.944790.0003.491.130.0750.4310.741
Table 6. Ranking of Critical Success Factors.
Table 6. Ranking of Critical Success Factors.
Critical Success FactorOverall Ranking
CSF2. Trust1
CSF16. Outcomes2
CSF17. Outcomes distribution3
CSF1. Tension4
CSF12. Intensity5
CSF9. Antecedents6
CSF6. Cooperation7
CSF13. Management8
CSF3. Long-term commitment9
CSF8. Cohesion10
CSF4. Synergy11
CSF15. Standardization12
CSF11. Capabilities13
CSF10. Congruence14
CSF14. Governance15
CSF7. Inter-dependence16
CSF5. Equity17

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ceptureanu, E.G.; Ceptureanu, S.I.; Radulescu, V.; Ionescu, S.A. What Makes Coopetition Successful? An Inter-Organizational Side Analysis on Coopetition Critical Success Factors in Oil and Gas Distribution Networks. Energies 2018, 11, 3447.

AMA Style

Ceptureanu EG, Ceptureanu SI, Radulescu V, Ionescu SA. What Makes Coopetition Successful? An Inter-Organizational Side Analysis on Coopetition Critical Success Factors in Oil and Gas Distribution Networks. Energies. 2018; 11(12):3447.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ceptureanu, Eduard Gabriel, Sebastian Ion Ceptureanu, Violeta Radulescu, and Stefan Alexandru Ionescu. 2018. "What Makes Coopetition Successful? An Inter-Organizational Side Analysis on Coopetition Critical Success Factors in Oil and Gas Distribution Networks" Energies 11, no. 12: 3447.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop