4.5 Article

Implementing the right project structure to achieve coopetitive innovation projects

期刊

LONG RANGE PLANNING
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 384-405

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.009

关键词

Coopetition; Risk of opportunism; Economic and technological risks; Coopetitive project team; Separated project team; Case study; Space industry

资金

  1. Labex Entreprendre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research focuses on the project structure used by coopetitors to achieve common innovation projects. Scholars have recently identified an original but complex project structure that they call the Coopetitive Project Team (CPT). However, other project structures can also be implemented by coopetitors to achieve innovation. Therefore, we address the following question: for which types of innovation projects is CPT appropriate? We argue that coopetitors need to use CPT for high-risk and high-cost projects when the aim is to develop radical innovation. CPT allows coopetitors not only to develop innovation capabilities through close resource and knowledge sharing but also to manage the risk of opportunism. Conversely, coopetitors should use another project structure, Separated Project Teams (SPTs), for low-cost and low-risk projects when the aim is to develop incremental innovation. The SPT design allows coopetitors both to achieve the goal of the project and to minimize the risk of opportunism. To confirm our assumptions, we studied the project portfolios of Airbus and Thales, two firms in the space satellite industry. Our findings confirm that coopetitors should implement CPTs to handle innovation projects that are costly, risky and highly innovative. CPTs permit the sharing of knowledge and the management of high opportunism risk, both of which are necessary to achieve radical innovation. Conversely, coopetitors rely on SPTs for low-cost projects that require a low degree of knowledge sharing, thus avoiding the risk of opportunism in achieving their incremental innovation objectives. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据