Competition vs co-opetition: A case study

A closer look at the co-opetition concept and how it shapes collaborative initiatives in Aotearoa—New Zealand.

Open innovation with diverse collaborations is not occurring at a particularly high rate in Aotearoa New Zealand. What factors are affecting this? And what technological initiatives might make open innovation more likely? Initiatives from the Science for Technological Innovation (SfTI) National Science Challenge (NSC) provide some insight to these questions.

The Building New Zealand’s Innovation Capacity (BNZIC) team have observed that some project leaders with strong connections to industry and other key stakeholders are in a good position to initiate discussions about industry collaborations.

A case of co-opetition

A spearhead leader from SfTI facilitated a two-day forum that brought together representatives from leading businesses in the same sector, including the sector body's innovation manager.

As might be expected, the industry managers initially approached the forum from a competitive standpoint, which limited their perspective on initiating collaborative projects in order to maximise their leverage on investments in innovation or R&D.

However, at the forum a technology demonstration by a SfTI scientist and a presentation by the managing director of a New Zealand firm cooperating in another sector effectively demonstrated to the forum participants that there were projects of common interest and benefit.

These projects often lacked sufficient value relative to cost for any individual business to invest in independently. Helping stakeholders identify shared needs despite limited individual leverage was crucial in laying the foundation for collaborative initiatives.

Recognising their collective needs and the competitive advantage they could gain internationally served as sufficient incentives to invest provided commitment to a joint project, an agreement to seek government support, and a basis for establishing a platform for their sector.

Recognising the potential for successful technology development and leveraging associated intellectual property (IP) through international sales and revenue was crucial in overcoming the competitive inclination to prioritise individual gain and IP protection.

This case aligns with the recommendations for holistically managing co-opetition tensions, such as clarifying and restricting the collaboration domains to avoid competition, initially keeping commitments lower, and encouraging voluntary involvement to foster mutual awareness, understanding, and eventually trust.

However, the extent to which discussions among industry competitors occur currently or regularly in New Zealand sectors is unclear. It is also unclear whether these discussions tend to include only prominent larger firms (who may have less incentive to initiate collective change) compared to a diverse range of potential partners including Māori and smaller organisations.

Further consideration should be given to the role of the science sector in fostering collaboration between competitors.

Related articles