LEARNING LOG RECORD SHEET: Vinay Ramamurthy 20 March 2011

SOURCE/FULL REFERENCE Dr. Mosad Zineldin (2004) Co-opetition: the organisation of the future, Marketing Intelligence & planning, vol 22 No.7, 2004, pp.780-789, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503 DESCRIPTION Mosad Zineldin, Professor and Doctor of Philosophy, emphasises on the concept of co-opetition and its importance to the organizations in the future. Co-opetition, as in the title of this article, describes a business situation in which independent parties co-operate with one another and co-ordinate their activities, thereby collaborating to achieve mutual goals, but at the same time compete with each other as well as with other firms. The focus is on key areas such as criteria, development, survival, trust, commitment, benefits and the negative side of a co-opetition relationship. He aggregates the concepts with a few examples and states collaboration, cooperation and coordination with their competitors can be taken into consideration as potential benefits to the organisations. But, the real question which strikes the mind: Does co-opetition really help the smaller organisations? Will it be beneficial only if it is a long-term relationship? Will it scale down the growth of an organisation? ANALYSIS (CONCEPTS, EXAMPLES, STATUS OF SOURCE, CRITIQUE etc) This unfathomed and reasoned article can be used as a short hand guide for an organisation that is willing to commence an agreement, but is not sure of the pros n cons of co-opetition. The basic philosophy underlying co-opetitive business relationships is that all industrial management activities should aim for the establishment of mutually beneficial partnership relationships with other actors in the system, including competitors (Zineldin, 1998, 2000). He has quoted the example of DELL and COMPAQ competing in hardware development and manufacture and cooperates with software producers such as NETSCAPE and MICROSOFT, but does not explain in-depth analysis on the type of cooperation or agreement they really are into, a case-study would have given a clear bigger picture of things. He also identifies certain important aspects to get into an agreement such as willingness, positivism, commitment, something of value, ethical values, and last but not the least the freedom to accept or reject certain terms and conditions. To develop a co-opetition relationship both the parties must first understand each others visions, goals and what they are going to gain out of the agreement deal. Hakansson (1982) developed an interaction approach which concentrates on four main components environment, atmosphere, interacting parties and interaction process. The goal or purpose of the co-opetition for the organisations participating is to yield a non-zero sum game relationship, which in other words is a win-win situation for both. Zineldin (1998) states the following for the survival of the co-opetitive relation such as- 1. Individual willingness, motivation and strategic fit, 2.Interdependence, 3.Cultural fit, 4.Organizational arrangements and institutionalisation, 5.Integration and integrity. There are different organisations that may be separated geographically

but are in a co-opetition, it is important for such firms to have a clear communication channel so that no differences arise at any stage. One can say that as time goes by in a relationship the organisations adapt to each others environment and working style. Confidence on the part of trusting party results from the belief that the trustworthy party is reliable and has high integrity, which is associated with such qualities as consistency, competence, honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect, helpfulness, and benevolence (Sherman, 1971; Altman and Taylor, 1973). Trust in a way is directly proportional to the long term relationship, the more you trust the other organisation the longer the life time of your agreement and the commitment follows. On one face of the coin the if, co-opetition works out well then the companies will have lots of benefits like cutting down the production costs, labour, more knowledge shared, scope for innovation, more exposure to the upcoming markets and upraised Value for customers who hold shares etc, but on the other face what if it goes wrong? Close relationships can sometimes become black-holes as mutual expectations increase and thus demand on each others resources increases. In these cases a relationship can be an economic burden without anyone noticing it (Hakansson and Snehota, 1995). The failure leads to many problems like loosing the business, increase in costs, loss of flexibility and control etc. A quite interesting article all in all, could have been better if the examples given were discussed more in-depth or a few case studies would have made it more enjoyable. Zineldin has not spoken about the origination of the concept co-opetition in his article, which is not a good ethic. Areas like terms and conditions, legal norms for organisations to get into co-opetition could have been discussed. USEFULNESS/FUTURE RESEARCH/ACTIVITY PLANNED It has motivated me to do more in-depth analysis in areas like strategies and planning for co-opetition. Leaves scope for case studies on examples of organisations involved in co-opetition. reference list: Zineldin, M. (1998), Towards an ecological collaborative relationship management, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.32 No. 11/12, pp.1138-64. Hakansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods An interaction Approach, Wiley, Chichester Sherman, S. (1992), Are strategic alliances working?, Fortune, September, pp.77-8. Altman, I. And Taylor, D.A. (1973), Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships, Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Hakansson, H. And Snehota, I. (1995), The burden of relationships or whos next? , paper presented at IMP 11th International Conference, Manchester, September 7-9.