Harnessing Technology to Drive Coopetition and Value Co-Creation: A Service-Dominant Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Foundations of Coopetition
2.2. Value Creation Mechanisms in Coopetition Networks (Research Gap 1)
2.3. The Role of Technology in Coopetition Networks (Research Gap 2)
2.4. Reframing Coopetition Through Service-Dominant Logic: A Shift Toward Value Co-Creation
3. Methodology
3.1. A Conceptual Approach
3.2. Research Approach
3.3. Theoretical Choices and Transparency
3.3.1. Identifying Relevant Theories
3.3.2. Ensuring Comprehensive Coverage
3.3.3. Selection Criteria for Theoretical Frameworks
3.3.4. Final Theoretical Choices and Justification
3.4. Research Strategy and Theoretical Coherence
4. Institutional and Technological Foundations of Value Co-Creation in Coopetition Networks
4.1. From Labour Theory to Value Co-Creation
4.2. Relevance to Coopetition Networks
4.3. The Role of Technology in Networks: Knowledge, Institutions, and Value Creation
4.4. Social Construction of Technology and Value Perception
4.5. Technology as a Key Enabler in Coopetition Networks
4.6. The Role of Institutional Work in Value Networks
4.7. Ensuring Sustainability and Effectiveness in Real-World Coopetition Networks
5. Advancing Coopetition Research: Bridging Value Co-Creation and Technological Integration Through S-D Logic
5.1. Addressing Value Creation Mechanisms in Coopetition Networks
5.2. Addressing the Role of Technology in Coopetition Networks
6. Building Systemic and Institutional Foundations for Coopetition Technology-Driven Networks
6.1. How Can Technology Facilitate Coopetition Within Networks?
6.2. What Institutional and Technological Configurations Optimize Value Co-Creation in Coopetition Networks?
6.3. Responding to the Question: How Can Coopetition Networks Be Designed to Ensure Sustainable and Equitable Value Distribution?
7. A Strategic Framework for Technology-Enabled Coopetition Networks (TECNs)
7.1. Core Constructs of the Framework
7.1.1. Institutions and Institutional Arrangements
7.1.2. Institutionalized Technologies
7.1.3. Institutional Work
7.2. Systemic Building Blocks for Technology-Driven Coopetition Networks
- Coopetition Actors—The core participants in the network, including firms, customers, and stakeholders, who navigate the inherent tensions between cooperation and competition. Their interactions drive innovation, market expansion, and collective value co-creation.
- Resource Integration—The collaborative merging of diverse resources, capabilities, and competencies. This integration strengthens the network’s collective value proposition, ensuring superior outcomes compared to individual contributions.
- Service Exchange—The mechanism through which resources are shared and utilized. This process reinforces mutual benefits, demonstrating the interdependence of competitive and cooperative forces in value creation.
- Institutions and Institutional Arrangements—Governance structures that provide rules, norms, and shared understandings. These frameworks guide interactions, ensuring stability while allowing for flexibility and innovation.
- Nested Service Ecosystems—Coopetition networks operate within broader service ecosystems, interacting with external stakeholders, regulatory bodies, and industry standards. These nested layers reveal the complexity and richness of value co-creation processes.
- Operand Technologies—Tangible digital tools such as IoT, blockchain, and cloud computing enable operational efficiency, facilitate coordination, and support seamless resource exchange.
- Operant Technologies—Intangible, knowledge-based innovations like AI, machine learning, and predictive analytics catalyze decision-making, drive strategic realignments, and foster network scalability.
7.2.1. How the Building Blocks Enable Value Co-Creation
- Coordinating Resource Integration—Ensuring pooled resources are strategically leveraged to maximize collective benefits.
- Enabling Seamless Service Exchange—Facilitating efficient, reciprocal interactions among network actors.
- Fostering Dynamic Value Co-Creation—Encouraging continuous innovation and Adaptability, maintaining the balance between competitive differentiation and cooperative synergies.
7.2.2. Strategic Implications for Coopetition Networks
- Leveraging Technology—Harnessing digital tools and platforms to enhance collaboration, automation, and innovation.
- Aligning Institutional Structures—Establishing shared governance mechanisms to balance competition and cooperation, ensuring long-term sustainability.
- Promoting Dynamic Interactions—Encouraging continuous adaptation to address emerging challenges, driving sustained innovation and competitive advantage.
8. Conclusions
8.1. Limitations
8.2. Practical and Future Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Akaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Technology as an operant resource in service (eco)systems. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 12(3), 367–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akaka, M., Schau, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2023, January 3–6). How practice diffusion drives IoT technology adoption and institutionalization of solutions in service ecosystems. 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2023 (pp. 1427–1435), Maui, HI, USAAvailable online: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/102808 (accessed on 23 November 2024).
- Akaka, M., Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of International Marketing, 21(4), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akwei, A., Peppard, J., & Hughes, P. (2010). The process of creating dynamic capabilities. British Journal of Management, 44, 1–45. Available online: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/7869 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology. Penguin Books Ltd., Registered Offices. Available online: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4210376/mod_resource/content/1/Brian Arthur-The nature of technology-2009.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Barile, S., Lusch, R., Reynoso, J., Marialuisa, S., & Spohrer, J. (2016). Systems, networks, and ecosystems in service research. Journal of Service Management, 34(1), 652–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bettencourt, L. A., Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). A Service lens on value creation: Marketing’s role in achieving strategic advantage. California Management Review, 57(1), 44–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beunen, R., & Patterson, J. J. (2019). Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(1), 12–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bicen, P., Hunt, S., & Madhavaram, S. (2021). Coopetitive innovation alliance performance: Alliance competence, alliance’s market orientation, and relational governance. Journal of Business Research, 123, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouncken, R., Kumar, A., Connell, J., Bhattacharyya, A., & He, K. (2024). Coopetition for corporate responsibility and sustainability: Does it influence firm performance? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 30(1), 128–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burga, R., & Rezania, D. (2017). Project accountability: An exploratory case study using actor–network theory. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1024–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, J. D., Danatzis, I., Wernicke, C., Akaka, M. A., & Reynolds, D. (2019). How does innovation emerge in a service ecosystem? Journal of Service Research, 22(1), 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M., Lv, C., Wang, X., Li, L., & Yang, P. (2023). A critical review of studies on coopetition in educational settings. Sustainability, 15(10), 8370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemens, V., Wilden, R., Akaka, M. A., Foege, J. N., & Nüesch, S. (2025). Multi-level value creation in the sharing economy: A configurational co-creation approach to business model development. Industrial Marketing Management, 125, 272–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbo, L., Kraus, S., Vlačić, B., Dabić, M., Caputo, A., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2023). Coopetition and innovation: A review and research agenda. Technovation, 122, 102624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crick, J. (2019). The dark side of coopetition: When collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(2), 318–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dome, T. (2003). David Ricardo on Public Debt. History of Political Economy, 35(3), 570–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva, A., & Cardoso, A. J. M. (2024). Co-opetition and the industrial internet of things: A strategic framework for operational efficiency in the portuguese ornamental stone sector. Administrative Sciences, 14(6), 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. (2014). Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elo, J., Lumivalo, J., Tuunanen, T., & Vargo, S. L. (2024, January 3–6). Enabling value co-creation in partner collaboration ecosystems: An institutional work perspective. 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikiki, HI, USAAvailable online: https://www.sdlogic.net/pdf/post2018/24_0031.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2024).
- Foschi, M. (1972). On the concept of “Expectations”. Sage Journals—Acta Sociologica, 15, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friend, S. B., Malshe, A., & Fisher, G. J. (2020). What drives customer re-engagement? The foundational role of the sales-service interplay in episodic value co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullerton, R. R., Kennedy, F. A., & Widener, S. K. (2014). Lean manufacturing and firm performance: The incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7–8), 414–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garay-Rondero, C. L., Martinez-Flores, J. L., Smith, N. R., Caballero Morales, S. O., & Aldrette-Malacara, A. (2020). Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(5), 887–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gernsheimer, O., Kanbach, D. K., & Gast, J. (2021). Coopetition research—A systematic literature review on recent accomplishments and trajectories. Industrial Marketing Management, 96, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnyawali, D. R., & Song, Y. (2016). Pursuit of rigor in research: Illustration from coopetition literature. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, R., & Meyer, R. E. (2008). Influencing ideas: A celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greer, C., Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2016). A service perspective. Key managerial insights from service-dominant (S-D) logic. Organizational Dynamics, 45(1), 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a new theoretical foundation for selling. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: Resources, competences, productivity, economic growth (Vol. 16, pp. 385–393). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaakkola, E., & Vargo, S. L. (2021). Assessing and enhancing the impact potential of marketing articles. AMS Review, 11(3–4), 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaakkola, E., Kaartemo, V., Siltaloppi, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2024). Advancing service-dominant logic with systems thinking. Journal of Business Research, 177, 114592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joiner, K., & Lusch, R. (2016). Evolving to a new service-dominant logic for health care. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Health, 3, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaartemo, V., Akaka, M., & Vargo, S. (2017). A service-ecosystem perspective on value creation: Implications for international business. In Value creation in international business (pp. 131–149). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleinaltenkamp, M., Corsaro, D., & Sebastiani, R. (2018). The role of proto-institutions within the change of service ecosystems. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 28(5), 609–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klimas, P., Ahmadian, A. A., Soltani, M., Shahbazi, M., & Hamidizadeh, A. (2023). Coopetition, where do you come from? identification, categorization, and configuration of theoretical roots of coopetition. SAGE Open, 13(1), 215824402210850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koskela-Huotari, K., Vink, J., & Edvardsson, B. (2020). The institutional turn in service research: Taking stock and moving ahead. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In The SAGE handbook of organization studies: Chapter 6. Sage. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In Institutional work (pp. 1–28). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusch, R., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2014). Service ecosystems. In Service-dominant logic (pp. 158–176). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzhynski, S., & Biedenbach, G. (2023). The knotted paradox of coopetition for sustainability: Investigating the interplay between core paradox properties. Industrial Marketing Management, 110, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meena, A., Dhir, S., & Sushil, S. (2023). A review of coopetition and future research agenda. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 38(1), 118–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, J. F. (1993). A new ecology of competition harvardbusinessreview. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. Available online: https://hbr.org/1993/05/predators-and-prey-a-new-ecology-of-competition (accessed on 3 December 2024). [PubMed]
- Mokyr, J. (2004). Accounting for the Industrial Revolution. In The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain (pp. 1–27). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munir, K. A., & Phillips, N. (2005). The birth of the “Kodak Moment”: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1665–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustak, M., & Plé, L. (2020). A critical analysis of service ecosystems research: Rethinking its premises to move forward. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 399–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & Leadership, 25(6), 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. In Harvard business review (Vol. 71, pp. 65–77). Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9309166477&site=eds-live (accessed on 2 December 2024).
- Parayitam, S., & Guru-Gharana, K. (2010). Economics Of Resource Based And Dynamic Capabilities View: A Contemporary Framework. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 83–94. [Google Scholar]
- Pedeliento, G., Mangiò, F., Murtas, G., & Andreini, D. (2023). Market system dynamics (MSD): A process-oriented review of the literature. AMS Review, 13(3–4), 173–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeves, M., Lotan, H., Legrand, J., & Jacobides, M. G. (2022). Chapter 3 how business ecosystems rise (and often fall). In Business ecosystems (pp. 27–34). De Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouyre, A., Fernandez, A.-S., & Bruyaka, O. (2024). Big problems require large collective actions: Managing multilateral coopetition in strategic innovation networks. Technovation, 132, 102968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajtos, L., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & Harrison, J. (2018). Boundary objects for institutional work across service ecosystems. Journal of Service Management, 29(4), 615–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, W. (2014). Institutions and organizations (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Siltaloppi, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2017). Triads: A review and analytical framework. Marketing Theory, 17(4), 395–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiller, P. T. (2010). A tribute to Oliver Williamson: Regulation: A transaction cost perspective. California Management Review, 52(2), 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uribe, J., Sytch, M., & Kim, Y. H. (2020). When friends become foes: Collaboration as a catalyst for conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 751–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L. (2011). Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions: Toward a service-dominant logic-based theory of the market. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1), 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., Akaka, M. A., & Wieland, H. (2020). Rethinking the process of diffusion in innovation: A service-ecosystems and institutional perspective. Journal of Business Research, 116, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., Fehrer, J. A., Wieland, H., & Nariswari, A. (2024). The nature and fundamental elements of digital service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 35(2), 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Koskela-Huotari, K. (2020). Advancing conceptual-only articles in marketing. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(1), 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2010). Handbook of service science (P. P. Maglio, C. A. Kieliszewski, & J. C. Spohrer, Eds.). Springer US. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2014). Inversions of service-dominant logic. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., Peters, L., Kjellberg, H., Koskela-Huotari, K., Nenonen, S., Polese, F., Sarno, D., & Vaughan, C. (2023a). Emergence in marketing: An institutional and ecosystem framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(1), 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & O’Brien, M. (2023b). Service-dominant logic as a unifying theoretical framework for the re-institutionalization of the marketing discipline. Journal of Business Research, 164, 113965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wieland, H., Hartmann, N., & Vargo, S. (2017). Business models as service strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 925–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Q., Gao, Y., Xia, N., Zhang, S., & Tao, G. (2023). Coopetition and organizational performance outcomes: A meta-analysis of the main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
da Silva, A.A.; Cardoso, A.J.M. Harnessing Technology to Drive Coopetition and Value Co-Creation: A Service-Dominant Perspective. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020064
da Silva AA, Cardoso AJM. Harnessing Technology to Drive Coopetition and Value Co-Creation: A Service-Dominant Perspective. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(2):64. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020064
Chicago/Turabian Styleda Silva, Agostinho Antunes, and Antonio J. Marques Cardoso. 2025. "Harnessing Technology to Drive Coopetition and Value Co-Creation: A Service-Dominant Perspective" Administrative Sciences 15, no. 2: 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020064
APA Styleda Silva, A. A., & Cardoso, A. J. M. (2025). Harnessing Technology to Drive Coopetition and Value Co-Creation: A Service-Dominant Perspective. Administrative Sciences, 15(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020064