Anals Regional Science

Systematic review: an analysis model for
measuring the coopetitive performance in

horizontal cooperation networks mapping
the critical success factors and their
variables
Rodolfo Reinaldo Hermes Petter, Luis
Maurício Resende, Pedro Paulo de
Andrade Júnior & Diogo José Horst
The Annals of Regional Science

An International Journal of Urban,
Regional and Environmental Research
and Policy
ISSN 0570-1864
Ann Reg Sci

DOI 10.1007/s00168-014-0622-4
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Ann Reg Sci
DOI 10.1007/s00168-014-0622-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Systematic review: an analysis model for measuring

the coopetitive performance in horizontal cooperation
networks mapping the critical success factors
and their variables
Rodolfo Reinaldo Hermes Petter · Luis Maurício Resende ·

Pedro Paulo de Andrade Júnior · Diogo José Horst
Received: 28 August 2013 / Accepted: 8 July 2014

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract Several strategies have been developed for micro-enterprises and small
enterprises in relation to their competitiveness enhancement. In recent years, one of the
most widespread strategies has been the formation of horizontal cooperation networks
(HCNs), based on the evolutionary development of coopetition. This study aimed to
support and validates an analysis model developed by Petter (Modelo para análise da
competitividade de redes de cooperação horizontais de empresas, Universidade Tec-
nológica Federal do Paraná, UTFPR, Ponta Grossa, 2012), in order to point out which
are critical success factors (CSF), and their variables which influence the coopetition
performance of a HCN under aspects of cooperation and competitiveness. A system-
atic review supported by Sampaio and Mancini (Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia
11(1):83–89, 2007) was used to measure the status quo of published journals related
to the subject, among several databases. A large informational gap was found concern-
ing the development of methods and tools, as well as subsidies. Regarding the raise
R. R. H. Petter (B)
Product and Process Optimization Laboratory, Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering,
Engineering School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 99 Osvaldo Aranha Avenue,
90035190 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
e-mail: rodolfopetter@gmail.com
L. M. Resende · P. P. de Andrade Júnior · D. J. Horst

Graduate Program in Production Engineering, Technological Federal
University of Paraná, Km 04 Monteiro Lobato Avenue,
84016210 Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil
e-mail: lmresende@utfpr.edu.br
P. P. de Andrade Júnior
e-mail: pedropaulo@utfpr.edu.br
D. J. Horst
e-mail: diogohorst@hotmail.com
123
R. R. H. Petter et al.
of publications found inside the scope, 18 CSF, 52 variables were mapped correlating
them with 144 indicators, therefore, supporting and validating the proposed model of
analysis.
JEL Classification L14
1 Introduction
Faced by constant increases in market demand for higher productivity, innovations in

value, competitive differentiation, and the highest quality standards in the production
of goods and services, the scope of globalized competitiveness affects micro- and
small businesses, forcing such companies to increase their competitive strategies.
In this context, there is reason to believe that there are greater possibilities for
industrial growth by using horizontal cooperation networks (HCNs). This concept is
based on the potential and synergy of group work, involving rapport, cooperation, and
coordination among the participating members, with the aim of collectively increasing
competitiveness (Carvalho and Lautindo 2010).
By definition, HCNs incorporate a significant number of companies that operate
around the same productive activity, as well as related and complementary companies
in the same geographical area, with local cultural identity and connections that offer the
possibility of articulation, interaction, and cooperation (Hoffmann et al. 2007). Thus,
an increase in these factors can produce an increase in the competitiveness of the
companies involved and the region where they are located (Gerolamo and Carpinetti
2008; Leask and Parker 2007; Braga 2010).
Increased competitiveness achieved through cooperative actions between compa-
nies, through the formation of an HCN, is the result of the union of actions aimed at
fostering the competitiveness of the companies which constitute the network, reflecting
their evolutionary development, both individually and collectively, within the network.
An HCN is only well characterized if an intense transfer of technical informa-
tion occurs between its participants. This type of network has a broader scope of
management, including organizations, individuals, their goals, values, and interests
(de Sordi et al. 2009; de Carvalho and Tálamo 2010).
Carvalho and Lautindo (2010) argue that an HCN is a sectoral and geographical
grouping of companies where there is the realization of joint cooperation and external
economies, generating a gain in efficiency for the actors participating in the network,
fostering competitive advantages, and therefore, entry into foreign markets, where
these actors might not be able to enter on an individual basis.
Chennamaneni and Desiraju (2011) make the point that these companies benefit
through specialization and concentration in their sector, thereby generating and gaining
competitive advantages through inter-company cooperation. Collective efficiency is
able to generate the possibility of the inclusion of these companies in foreign markets,
and other gains; this process can be summed up as coopetition.
Coopetition is based on the concept that it is possible to simultaneously compete
and cooperate by generating competitiveness; rival organizations complement each
other, enabling mutual cooperation in order to enhance competitive forces.
123
Coopetitive performance in horizontal cooperation networks
Regarding the issue of inter-company cooperation in an HCN, Tidd et al. (2005) and
Verschoore and Balestrin (2008) have pointed out that organizations often cooperate
for very specific reasons, such as to reduce investment costs for technological devel-
opment, to reduce barriers in targeting new markets, to reduce risks in development,
to scale-up production, to reduce the time for the processes of innovation and product
development, and even to promote group learning.
In the cooperative model of network activity, the relationship between the actors
is one of partnership. According to Martinelli and Joyal (2003) and Lui et al. (2009),
this means sharing a common interest with one or more actors, each one presenting a
contribution based on their own particular characteristics.
Regarding inter-company competition in an HCN, Porter (2004) points out that the
result of the actions of individual companies is generated by the magnitude of the syn-
ergistic interplay between businesses, being a determining factor in the development
of new processes, products, and technologies.
Based on the fusion of the concepts of competition and cooperation, Dagnino and
Padula (2002) argue that the process of coopetition is a new concept regarding the
inter-dependence between organizations where there is a convergence of goals and
interests; this intersection shapes the “coopetitive value of creation”.
In terms of the identification of opportunities, the main benefits generated by this
pattern of activity are the division of risks and the sharing of opportunities. Studies such
as those by Verschoore (2010) and Maia and Maia (2011) list the performance benefits
for industrial HCN’s as gains in scale and market power, learning and innovation, a
reduction in costs and risks, among others.
However, an HCN will only be able to achieve these benefits when it reaches a
developmental level that is considered to be mature, where network governance is able
to articulate, formulate, and align potentiating strategies regarding the competitiveness
of the network. Tools are required to measure the maturity of such networks, in order
for organizations to know each other better and to better exploit their potential.
Based on these assumptions, research about business networks has been growing
in recent years. Consequently, this study provides a systematic review of the literature
related to company networks, more specifically the literature focused on HCNs, in an
attempt to map the current state of publications. This study also identifies the CSFs
and the main variables which comprise them, in order to analyze their coopetitive
maturity in terms of cooperation and competitiveness, in other words, coopetition.
2 Materials and methods
This is an applied study, with exploratory objectives, which developed a systematic

review. This review model enables the construction of summarized structures of evi-
dence under strategic pre-established conditions, including, systematic and explicit
search procedures, critical analysis, and the synthesis of the designated information
of interest.
Linde and Willich (2003) argue that systematic reviews have a particularly useful
function; they fill information gaps related to the overlap of several specialized studies
in a particular subject area, where a specific study would be unable to fill those gaps
123
on its own. It is possible to create new texts and summaries from the mixture of
information provided by this review model.
Regarding the structure of systematic reviews, Sampaio and Mancini (2007) have
suggested the following stages:
1. Definition of the research question;
2. Identification of the databases that will be consulted and the definition of strategies
and keywords;
3. Establishment of the selection criteria for articles when searching online;
4. Searches based on the guidelines defined in stage 2;
5. A comparison between the searches and the selection of the initial set of articles;
6. Application of the final selection criteria for articles that composed the literature
search portfolio;
7. Evaluation and critical analysis of all the selected articles included in the review;
8. Construction of the “critical summary” based on the information regarding the
selected articles;
9. Presentation of the conclusions and information regarding the evidence of the
intervention effects.
Linked to the search stages suggested by Sampaio and Mancini (2007), this study was
performed using a series of search filters to identify articles related to the topic in the
best possible way.
Our research objective was to identify, structure, and synthesize, and in systematic
way, the critical success factors that influence the performance of a coopetitive HCN, as
well as the variables that compose them. The research question guiding this study was
as follows: what are the CSF and variables that influence the coopetitive performance
of HCNs?
2.1 Definition of search bases and keywords
In the definition of the databases that we searched, we opted for the selection of
bases linked to the CAPES (Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Per-
sonnel, Brazil) journals portal, since CAPES has a connection with universities that
enables students and researchers to have free access to databases, which, in the most
part, require a payment subscription to access them. The CAPES portal databases
are classified into main areas of knowledge. Thus, among the ten main areas (agri-
cultural sciences, environmental sciences, biological sciences, health sciences, hard
sciences, earth sciences, humanities, social and applied sciences, engineering, linguis-
tics/letters/arts, multidisciplinary), engineering and multidisciplinary were chosen as
the main areas. In turn, engineering is classified into 15 sub-areas (energy, logis-
tics, aerospace, biomedical, civil, nuclear, chemical, materials/metallurgy, mining,
production/occupational safety, electrical/electronics/telecommunications, mechani-
cal/thermal/mechanics of solids, marine and ocean engineering, sanitary, general).
From these sub-areas, industrial/hygiene and occupational safety were selected. Con-
sequently, according to the framework presented by CAPES, the selected areas were as
follows: (1) multidisciplinary and (2) production engineering, hygiene, and safety. The
123
Table 1 Searched bases in the

27 Selected bases
multidisciplinary area
Academic Search Premier—ASP (EBSCO)
Annual Reviews
Applied Science Tech Full-text (Wilson)
Cross Search (ISI Web Services WOK)
Eighteenth Century Online (Gale)
Gale—Academic OneFile
Highwire Press
Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator Electronic:
J-STAGE
JSTOR Arts & Sciences I Collection
JSTOR Arts & Sciences III Collection
Library of Congress (United States Library of Congress—LOC)
Nature (NPG)
OAIster
OECD Library
OECD Books by Theme. Science and Technology
OECD Databases. Science, Technology and R&D Statistics
Science (AAAS)
ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
SCIRUS (Elsevier)
SCOPUS (Elsevier)
SpringerLink (MetaPress)
TEL (thèses-en-ligne)
US Patent Full-text and Image Database (USPTO)
Web of Science
Wiley Online Library
Encyclopædia Britannica
OECD Databases. Main Economic Indicators
latter was also selected due to the inter-relationship between production engineering
and other areas, in a multidisciplinary manner.
Forty periodicals bases were selected. Tables 1 and 2 show the selected bibliograph-
ical bases.
Regarding the establishment of keywords, systematic combinations were con-
structed between the search axes and combinations of keywords. This was intended
to achieve better targeting and also the possibility of linkage with the subject.
The terms used were generic terms, as well as the terms most commonly used
and disseminated. The axes of this research were as follows: business network; coop-
eration network; and industrial cluster, strategic alliances, organizational arrange-
ments.
Keywords that structured the research axes were established and identified as study
constituents inside the scope and contribution of industrial activity in HCNs. The key-
words selected were as follows: coopetition; cooperation; indicators, performance.
123
Table 2 Searched bases in the

13 Selected bases
production engineering,
hygiene, and safety area Cambridge Journals Online
Compendex (Engineering Village 2)
CSA Technology Research Database
Derwent Innovations Index—DII (Thomson ISI Web Services)
Emerald Full-text (Emerald)
Environmental Engineering Abstracts (CSA)
General Science Full-text (Wilson)
IEEE Xplore
INSPEC (Ovid)
Materials Business File (CSA)
Mechanical and Transportation Engineering Abstracts (CSA)
Oxford Journals (Oxford University Press)
Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO)
Based on these definitions, twenty (20) combinations between axes and keywords
were generated, plus five (5) combinations between the keywords. The research axes
were separately surveyed, generating over five (5) terms in the articles search. The
combinations are shown in Fig. 1.
Having established these assumptions, these combinations formed the second filter
and criteria were decided (2.3).
2.2 Criteria for selection of articles
At the time of the search, based on the axes and keywords combinations in the online
environment, the selection criterion was that the combinations of exact words should
be presented in the article title. This criterion was established as the third filter and
allowed a refinement of the research, indicating journals that were strictly related
to the research subject. The time interval for the selection of published works was
established, which was between January 2008 and July 2011; this was considered to
be the fourth selection filter.
2.3 Search guidelines
The searches were performed using the tools and options offered by the CAPES journal
portal; it allowed the combination and search for two terms simultaneously. Thus,
previously discussed combinations (Section Bases and keywords) were launched, e.g.,
“business network” and “coopetition” , also following the established criteria (section
Criteria for the articles selection online).
2.4 Selection and comparison of initial set of articles
Even considering all our search filters and selection criteria, during our research, there
was the possibility of finding articles that did not fit the targeted theme. Thus, a prior
123
Fig. 1 Combinations between axes and keywords
analysis was performed and if the selected article was compatible, it was directly
downloaded and its data launched in a spreadsheet for control and secondary evalua-
tion, generating the final portfolio of selected articles. Thus, the initial set of 185 titles
was selected, cataloged, and stored in a systematic way.
123
Fig. 2 Structural analysis of coopetition in horizontal cooperation networks
2.5 Systematic review
The summaries and/or abstracts obtained from the 185 pre-selected titles were read.
From these, only articles that addressed proposals of criteria, characteristics, and analy-
sis variables were selected.
Specifically, the final selection of articles presented a range of critical success fac-
tors, through the analysis of the networks of companies in the coopetition framework
proposed by Petter (2012), exposed at the last two levels of the structure, and presented
in Fig. 2.
The fundamental pillar for the evolutionary development of the competitiveness
levels of an HCN is coopetition, which is formed by combining the results of the
analysis of internal competences generating competitiveness for each company’s net-
work and the results of inter-company cooperation. However, the proposed model and
the scope of the analysis coverage in this study were delimited at the level of inter-
relationship factors and the internal factors level of the company’s network (Petter
2012).
Due to the other two levels not being controllable by the company’s network,
we took into consideration the fact that the competitiveness levels achieved by
the participating companies of a network are conditioned by sectoral factors and
systemic factors, which are nevertheless inside its full scope of action (Petter
2012).
Thus, the fundamental criterion for inclusion of items in the final literature portfolio
was the presentation of critical success factors and variables, which compose the
last two levels of analysis. This criterion was chosen as the fifth and final selection
filter.
123
2.6 Final selection and evaluation
Following the criterion scope, from the 185 pre-selected titles, only 52 articles were
selected, structuring the full literature review portfolio. From the final selection of the
articles, 18 CSF were extracted and 48 variables at two analysis levels. This extraction
occurred by full reading of these articles. The structure used for the selection of the
52 journals among the 185 that was analyzed is presented in Table 3.
In total, 185 articles were identified and by analyzing and filtering, only 52 were
suitable for this study; these formed the bibliographical research portfolio. The strat-
ification of these articles is presented in the next section.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Stratification of obtained data
The presentation of results is based on by the following points: distribution of pre-

selected articles among the bases; distribution of articles; CSF; and their variables.
3.2 Distribution of pre-selected articles
As mentioned before (Bases and keywords section), and also shown in Tables 1 and 2,
the search of articles covered 40 bases linked to the CAPES journals portal.
It was possible to identify the number of journals linked to the study of HCN
performance, thus forming the 185 pre-selected portfolio of articles. The distribution
of these articles per base is shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
The SCOPUS base and bases from the IEE Explore group were those which returned
the largest quantities of journals in relation to the research topics. In both cases, this
return can be explained by the relative number of journals published in the area of
strategic management and the proposition of methods and/or models for analyzing
companies.
After reading the abstracts of the pre-selected articles, it is important to mention
that the 52 selected journals were differently distributed among the bases, in relation
to those that were pre-selected. This redistribution is shown in Fig. 5.
In descending order, it was observed that the Cross Search, SCOPUS and Emerald
bases showed the best results in terms of the quantity of journals, which was directly
linked to the quality of services and the selection criteria regarding the researched
topic, especially in relation to the aspect “proposition of tools and models to analyze
and measure the performance of cooperative and competitive networks of HCNs”, as
well as the proposition factors and analysis variables.
With respect to the IEEE Xplore and ScienceDirect bases, which showed good
yields of journals in the pre-selection, the articles were mostly concerned with studies
of internal organizational performance, focusing on the analysis of the internal sectors
of companies and not covering issues in relation to their internal skills involving the
structure of companies.
123
Table 3 Example of pre-selection of journals
Field of knowledge of the selected articles: production engineering
Base Combination Journal Article title Year Abstract Keywords
123
keyword
ScienceDirect PCll—“Industrial Regional Public support to 2011 This paper analyzes empirically a public policy Clusters
(Elsevier) Cluster” and Science and clusters: A promoting industrial clusters in France. Cluster Localization
“Indicators” Urban Firm-level study policies have become popular in many countries, but economies
Economics of French have not been extensively evaluated. We propose in Spatial
“Local this paper the first quantitative evaluation of a cluster concentration
Productive policy exploiting firm-level data. We use data on Productivity
Systems” production and employment for firms that benefited
from the policy and on firms that did not both before
and after the policy started. We first show that the
policy selected firms in sectors and regions in relative
decline. Second, the policy did not succeed in
reversing the relative decline in productivity for the
targeted firms. The policy had no robust effect on
employment or exports
World Value Added of 2010 By contrasting the performance of clustered Cluster, micro-
Development Cluster micro-enterprises with that of dispersed ones in the enterprises,
Membership for handloom sector in Ethiopia, this study shows that propensity score
Micro- clustering significantly increases profit. To correct for matching,

enterprises of selection bias, we match clustered and dispersed handloom.
the Handloom micro-enterprises that share similar observable Africa, Ethiopia
Sector in characteristics except for being clustered both in
Ethiopia urban and rural areas. Results show that clustering is
more profitable in urban than rural areas. It is also
found that regional-specific factors determining
clustering of micro-enterprises are different in urban
and rural areas, highlighting the need to focus on local
circumstances when formulating policies to promote
clusters
Source: the authors

Fig. 3 Distribution of pre-selected journals linked to the multidisciplinary area
Fig. 4 Distribution of pre-selected journals linked to the production engineering area
3.3 Distribution of articles
The distribution of selected publications (Fig. 6) showed that in 2008, there was a
greater discussion about the development of tools, and factors and analysis variables
of cooperativeness and competitiveness in HCNs.
123
Fig. 5 Bibliographical portfolio distribution and final selection of journals
Fig. 6 Distribution of articles in relation to the year of publication per base
The Cross Search base only revealed 10 selected articles. On the other hand, Emer-
ald and SCOPUS Academic Search Premier showed the highest number of selected
articles, maintaining an average of two articles per year. Some peaks were noted, as
in the Academic Search Premier base in 2010, with four published papers, as well as
SCOPUS and Emerald in the same year, both with three articles.
123
Figure 6 shows the low number of publications that dealt with the study and analysis
of coopetition, as well as measuring its performance in HCNs. This reflects the existing
informational gaps regarding this issue. It is on this basis that this research had one of
its objectives, the identification of CSFs, and their variables in the analysis of levels
of coopetition of HCNs, in order to fill that gap.
3.4 Critical success factors and variables
Based on the 52 articles that were studied, 18 CSF were extracted and 48 variables
identified at the two analysis levels: inter-relationship (cooperation) and internal to
network companies (skills). These CSF and variables are shown in the Tables 4 and 5.
A frequency analysis of the occurrence of each CSF citation among the 52 selected
papers was made; the results are shown in Fig. 7.
Our results support Petter’s (2012) finding that the coopetitive performance of
HNCs mainly occurs through the development of good inter-relationships between
companies.
This reasoning is also supported by the evident importance attached to CSF 1,
“Trust and Commitment”, by the number of citations found among the 52 selected
articles; a higher levels of trust between business partners will be directly reflected in
the levels of cooperative commitment between them.
This concept, which is the basis of CSF 1, arises from the inter-relationship between
partners and companies, grounded in a stable relationship between the HCN compa-
nies. It consists of collaborative compliance with the agreements that are formed con-
tractually, or even informally, as well as through the sharing of technical skills among
the network members. It is an important catalyst in the structuring and formation of
credibility and competence of the network. Recognized as one of the basic pillars of
trust, commitment is able to increase levels of trust when all the network actors commit
to and perform their roles together and equally. Thus, commitment is a translation of
loyalty among network partners, when disseminated and understood at all organiza-
tional levels, thereby ensuring the continuity of cooperation between companies.
CSF 3, “Exchange of experiences and learning”, stands out, with 29 citations among
the 52 journals. By definition, the greater the exchange of experiences and/or technical
information, the higher the levels of absorption and learning that occur internally in
companies, as well as the whole network environment. CSF 3 is based on the concept
that the level of experience already absorbed by companies can be shared by collabo-
rating jointly to develop the network. This sharing is the catalyst for the generation of
knowledge at the inter-relationship level, and generating knowledge adds value to the
network of companies in various aspects, such as through innovation in products and
processes, and even through the complementarities between the network companies.
Learning is characterized through the exchange of experiences at wider levels, when
other business professionals build training, skills, and abilities in partner companies.
Regarding the internal level of network companies (skills), the CSFs that stood
out were as follows: CSF 15, “Innovative competence”; CSF 17, “Personnel Manage-
ment”; and CSF 18 “Intangible Assets”.
These settings can be based on the concepts of each of the following three CSFs.
CSF 15, the competence of an innovative company, can be defined as the capacity
123
Table 4 CSF and variables at inter-relational level inherent to HCN coopetition
Inter-relation factors
123
Dimension: cooperation
CSF Variable Authors
CSF1: Trust and Interaction level between the companies and Lin and Sun (2010), Niu (2010), Chang et al. (2010), Ramström (2008), Caglio and
commitment the network Ditillo (2008), Jiang et al. (2008), Luo (2008), Costa et al. (2009), Rank et al.
Affinity between network companies (2010), Castro et al. (2011), de Carvalho and Tálamo (2010), Sacomano Neto and
Cooperation between network companies Truzzi (2009), Gerolamo and Carpinetti (2008), Zeng et al. (2010), Pansiri (2008),
Radu (2010), Luo and Deng (2009), Buckley et al. (2009), Zhang (2008), Kong and
Kong (2010), Chow and Yau (2010), Battaglia et al. (2010), Osarenkhoe (2010),
Cambra-Fierro et al. (2011), Lundberg (2010), Lin and Lin (2010), Galdámez et al.
(2009), Jaouen and Gundolf (2009), Adobor (2011), Yan et al. (2008), Moeller
(2010), Peng (2011)
CSF2: Complementarity Cooperative relationship between network Niu (2010), Chang et al. (2010), Costa et al. (2009), Rank et al. (2010), Sacomano
and reciprocity companies regarding complementarity and Neto and Truzzi (2009), Balbinot and Marques (2009), Pansiri (2008), Buckley et al.
(synergy) reciprocity (2009), Fang (2010), Battaglia et al. (2010), Osarenkhoe (2010), Galdámez et al.
Efforts invested in each company’s network (2009), Cambra-Fierro et al. (2011), Lundberg (2010), Lin and Lin (2010), Adobor
Increased stability (2011), Yan et al. (2008), Qin et al. (2010), Moeller (2010), Peng (2011)
Removing obstacles, restrictions and
limitations
Results through cooperation over time

CSF3: Exchange of Internal cohesion of the network Lin and Sun (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Chang et al. (2010), Ward et al. (2011),
experiences and Collective learning Sammarra and Biggiero (2008), Vélez et al. (2008), Jiang et al. (2008), Britto and
learning Stimulus for generation and dissemination of Stallivieri (2010), Castro et al. (2011), de Magalhães et al. (2009), Sacomano Neto
knowledge and Truzzi (2009), Camisón and Forés (2011), Pansiri (2008), Galdámez et al.
(2009), Luo and Deng (2009), Buckley et al. (2009), Fang (2010), Hong et al. (2010),
Kong and Kong (2010), Battaglia et al. (2010), Osarenkhoe (2010), Cambra-Fierro
et al. (2011), Kock et al. (2010), Lundberg (2010), Yan et al. (2008), Peng (2011)
CSF4: History and Historical antecedent to network Lin and Sun (2010), Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Ward et al. (2011), Vélez et al.
identity (culture) Cultural alignment (2008), Jiang et al. (2008), Luo (2008), Pansiri (2008), Radu (2010), Fang (2010),
Profile of companies Hong et al. (2010), Lundberg (2010)
Table 4 continued
CSF5: Sharing and equity Equality of rights and duties Wu et al. (2009), Chang et al. (2010), Ward et al. (2011), Vélez et al.
Expression of common goals (2008), Caglio and Ditillo (2008), Jiang et al. (2008), Luo (2008), Fang
Mutual dependence between associated (2010), Osarenkhoe (2010)
companies
CSF6: Managing conflicts Management incompatibilities between partner Chang et al. (2010), Jiang et al. (2008), Luo (2008), de Carvalho and
and incompatibilities companies Tálamo (2010), Pansiri (2008), Radu (2010), Veal and Mouzas (2010), Ji
Administration of internal conflicts within the et al. (2010), Lundberg (2010), Qin et al. (2010)
network
Ability to manage different expectations and
interests of companies in relation to the network
CSF7: Competitive Sharing of competitive tools among partners Lin and Sun (2010), Niu (2010), Jiang et al. (2008), Luo (2008), Castro
cooperation Administration and control of opportunist attitudes et al. (2011), de Carvalho and Tálamo (2010), Zeng et al. (2010), Oprime
Control of rivalry actions et al. (2011), Adobor (2011), Moeller (2010)
CSF8: Control and Mechanisms of management and control Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Luo (2008), Costa et al. (2009), Rank et al.
standardization Diversity of partners and structure standardization (2010), Pansiri (2008), Radu (2010), Verschoore (2010), Moeller (2010)
(affinity)
CSF9: Adaptability and Adaptability and mobilization Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Jiang et al. (2008), Verschoore (2010)
alignment Strategic alignment
CSF10: Inter-dependence Independence and autonomy of the Sammarra and Biggiero (2008), Caglio and Ditillo (2008), Gerolamo and
and heteronomy companies in their business management Carpinetti (2008), Peng (2011)
CSF11: Governance Formalization of governance and the relationship Ward et al. (2011), Sammarra and Biggiero (2008), Caglio and Ditillo
between the network companies (2008), Luo (2008), Castro et al. (2011), Sacomano Neto and Truzzi
Management of links external to the network (2009), Gerolamo and Carpinetti (2008), Oprime et al. (2011), Zhang
(2008), Osarenkhoe (2010). Lin and Lin (2010), Qin et al. (2010)
123
Table 4 continued
123
CSF12: Externalities Infrastructure of companies Chang et al. (2010), Sammarra and Biggiero (2008), Vélez et al. (2008), Jiang et
Proximity between network companies al. (2008), Castro et al. (2011), Balbinot and Marques (2009), Pansiri (2008),
Kock et al. (2010), Moeller (2010), Ward et al. (2011), Luo (2008), Rank et al.
(2010), Sacomano Neto and Truzzi (2009), Battaglia et al. (2010),
Cambra-Fierro et al. (2011), Lundberg (2010), Jaouen and Gundolf (2009), Yan
et al. (2008), Lin and Lin (2010), Qin et al. (2010)
Table 5 CSF and variables at internal level inherent to HCN coopetition
Internal Factors
Dimension: Competences
CSF13: Company power to identify its weaknesses Lin and Sun (2010), Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Chang et al. (2010), Caglio and
Strategy and Company power to identify and convert weaknesses Ditillo (2008), Sacomano Neto and Truzzi (2009), Oprime et al. (2011),
management into strengths Cambra-Fierro et al. (2011), Lundberg (2010), Jaouen and Gundolf (2009),
Potential for identification, translation and Moeller (2010)
conversion of its core competencies into
competitive advantages
Financial planning
Capacity for development of strategic benchmarking
CSF14: Formalization of production management Lin and Sun (2010), Niu (2010), Oprime et al. (2011), Kong and Kong (2010),
Production Technological capacity of production Lundberg (2010), Jaouen and Gundolf (2009), Yan et al. (2008), Moeller (2010)
competence Production capacity
CSF15: Ability to innovate and meet market demands Lin and Sun (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Chang et al. (2010), Sammarra and Biggiero
Innovative (2008), Britto and Stallivieri (2010), de Magalhães et al. (2009), Gerolamo and
competence Carpinetti (2008), Zeng et al. (2010), Camisón and Forés (2011), Luo and Deng
(2009), Haeussler et al. (2010), Oprime et al. (2011), Fang (2010), Ji et al. (2010),
Zhang (2008), Kong and Kong (2010), Battaglia et al. (2010), Cambra-Fierro et al.
(2011), Yan et al. (2008), Peng (2011)
CSF16: Financial Availability of working capital Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Sacomano Neto and Truzzi (2009), Balbinot and
resources Control of indebtedness Marques (2009), Pansiri (2008), Haeussler et al. (2010), Fang (2010), Hong et al.
Costs (2010), Lundberg (2010)
CSF17: People Training of manpower Galdámez et al. (2009), Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Chang et al. (2010), Ward et al.
management Commitment of the company’s human resources (2011), Caglio and Ditillo (2008), Gerolamo and Carpinetti (2008), Balbinot and
Marques (2009), Camisón and Forés (2011), Pansiri (2008), Oprime et al. (2011),
Hong et al. (2010), Zhang (2008), Battaglia et al. (2010), Kock et al. (2010), Jaouen
and Gundolf (2009), Yan et al. (2008), Qin et al. (2010), Moeller (2010)
123
Table 5 continued
Internal Factors
123
Dimension: Competences
CSF18: Intangible Company’s brand reputation Galdámez et al. (2009), Niu (2010), Wu et al. (2009), Chang et al. (2010), Ward et al.
assets Intellectual capital management (2011), Caglio and Ditillo (2008), Gerolamo and Carpinetti (2008), Balbinot and
Marques (2009), Camisón and Forés (2011), Pansiri (2008), Oprime et al. (2011),
Hong et al. (2010), Zhang (2008), Battaglia et al. (2010), Kock et al. (2010), Jaouen
and Gundolf (2009), Yan et al. (2008), Qin et al. (2010), Moeller (2010)
Fig. 7 Distribution of CSF citations
for the translation, execution, and fulfillment of the requirements emanating from the
consumer market in relation to the attributes and characteristics of innovative and
differentiated new products involving the entire structure of the organization, as well
as the adaptation and evolution of production and administrative processes.
CSF 17 conceptualizes the management of people as the capacity of the company
to identify, manage, and retain talent in their productive and administrative structure.
Finally, CSF 18 recognizes that the intangible assets of a company can be reflected
in the “added-value” they bring to non-measurable resources, such as the development
and absorption of expertise, patenting of new products, licenses.
Based on these, three CSFs, which, as explained in Fig. 7, were the most cited
in the surveyed articles, a large percentage of the construction of the competitive-
ness of a company, whether it participates in a HCN or not, is dependent on its core
competencies, as well as its human resources.
It is also possible to justify most of the most citations for these three CSFs because
of the inter-dependencies that they have between them. This inter-dependence ini-
tially appears through the innovative capacity of a company, depending on its human
resources, which is managed and represented by the management of people in an
organization, making the direct link between the CSFs 15 and 17.
Consequently, the innovations generated by the human resources sector of a com-
pany creates a framework of innovative knowledge which is not physically measurable,
thereby structuring the intangible assets of the company and thus closing the intercon-
nection of CSFs 15, 16, and 17.
4 Conclusions
The proposed analysis modeled by Petter (2012) proved able to measure the current
state of publications related to coopetitive performance in horizontal cooperation net-
works. The systematic review produced a positive number of journals and citations
123
among the search bases successfully mapping the main critical success factors and
their variables.
Based on the data collected, it was possible to split the 48 variables into 144 indi-
cators, identifying whether the actions of each company were executed or not and
structuring a binary mathematical method for measuring the company’s performance,
linked to its respective network.
This research reinforces the need for more studies using methods and tools for the
analysis of the development of horizontal cooperation networks, given their relevant
competitive advantages that they offer to networks of companies.
In addition, this research identified a set of articles that were highly focused on the
issue of this type of network coopetition, opening the way for further discussion about
the growing importance of the theme, based on inter-company cooperation, not only
horizontally, but also vertically, such as in supply chains. It was also possible to discuss
the importance of the core competencies of companies regarding their evolutionary
competitive development in terms of competitive differentiation, especially in relation
to their survival in the market.
References
Adobor H (2011) Alliances as collaborative regimes: an institutional based explanation of interfirm collab-
oration. Compet Rev Int Bus J Incorp J Glob Compet 21(1):66–88
Anon (2010) Management 165. Economia Seria Manag 13(1):165–169
Balbinot Z, Marques RA (2009) Alianças Estratégicas como Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento da
Capacidade Tecnológica: o Caso de Cinco Empresas do Setor Eletroeletrônico Brasileiro. Revista de
Administração Contemporânea - RAC 13(4): 604–625
Battaglia M, Bianchi L, Frey M, Iraldo F (2010) An innovative model to promote CSR among SMEs
operating in industrial clusters: evidence from an EU project. Corp Social Responsib Environ Manag
17(3):133–141
Braga MJ (2010) Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia Redes, alianças estratégicas e intercooperação: o caso da
cadeia produtiva de carne bovina Networks, strategic alliances and cooperation: the case of production
chain of beef meat. R Bras Zootec 2010:11–16
Britto J, Stallivieri F (2010) Inovação, cooperação e aprendizado no setor de software no Brasil: análise
exploratória baseada no conceito de Arranjos Produtivos Locais (APLs). Economia e Sociedade, Camp-
inas 2(1):315–358
Buckley PJ, Glaister KW, Klijn E, Tan H (2009) Knowledge accession and knowledge acquisition in strategic
alliances: the impact of supplementary and complementary dimensions. Br J Manag 20(4):598–609
Caglio A, Ditillo A (2008) A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships:
achievements and future directions. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam
Cambra-Fierro J, Florin J, Perez L, Whitelock J (2011) Inter-firm market orientation as antecedent of
knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks. Manag Decis 49(3):444–467
Camisón C, Forés B (2011) Knowledge creation and absorptive capacity: the effect of intra-district shared
competences. Scand J Manag 27(1):66–86
Carvalho MM, Lautindo FJB (2010) Estratégia Competitiva: dos conceitos à implementação, 2nd edn.
Atlas, São Paulo
Castro M de, Bulgacov S, Hofmann VE (2011) Relacionamentos Interorganizacionais e Resultados: Estudo
em uma Rede de Cooperação Horizontal da Região Central do Paraná. RAC, 15(1): 25–26
Chang SC, Tu CJ, Li T-J, Tsai B-K (2010) Social capital, cooperative performance, and future cooperation
intention among recreational farm area owners in Taiwan. Soc Behav Personal Int J 38(10):1409–1429
Chennamaneni PR, Desiraju R (2011) Comarketing alliances: Should you contract on actions or outcomes?
Manag Sci 57(4):752–762
Chow RPM, Yau OHM (2010) Harmony and cooperation: their effects on IJV performance in China. Cross
Cult Manag Int J 17(3):312–326
123
Costa AC, Bijlsma-Frankema K, de Jong B (2009) The role of social capital on trust development and
dynamics: implications for cooperation, monitoring and team performance. Soc Sci Inf 48(2):199–228
Dagnino GB, Padula G (2002) Coopetition strategy: a new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation.
In: II annual conference of euram on: innovative resea NHCs Management. Stockholm, pp 9–11
de Carvalho MM, Tálamo JR (2010) Redes de cooperação com foco em inovação: um estudo exploratório.
Revista Gestão & Produção 17(4):747–760
de Magalhães JM, Provided Advantages, Enterprises Medium-sized, Networking Cooperation, Capital
Venture (2009) Vantagens proporcionadas às pequenas e médias empresas por meio da união em redes
de cooperação no contexto do venture capital. RAC 13(4):583–603
de Sordi JO, Picchiai D, da Costa MAM , Sanches MA (2009) Competências Críticas ao Desenvolvimento
de Mapas Cognitivos de Redes Interorganizacionais. RAP 43(5): 1181–1206
Fang E (2010) The effect of strategic alliance knowledge complementarity on new product innovativeness
in China. Org Sci 22(1):158–172
Galdámez EVC, Carpinetti LCR, Gerolamo MC (2009) Proposta de um sistema de avaliação do desempenho
para arranjos produtivos locais. Gestão & Produção (UFSCAR, Impresso) 16(1):133–51
Gerolamo MC, Carpinetti LCR (2008) Clusters e redes de cooperação de pequenas e médias empresas:
observatório europeu, caso alemão e contribuições ao caso brasileiro. Gestão & Produção (UFSCAR,
Impresso) 15(2):351–65
Haeussler C, Patzelt H, Zahra SA (2010) Strategic alliances and product development in high technology
new firms: the moderating effect of technological capabilities. J Bus Ventur 27(2):217–233
Hoffmann VE, Molina Morales FX, Martínez Fernández MT (2007) Redes de Empresas: Proposta de
uma Tipologia para Classificaçăo Aplicada na Indústria de Cerâmica de. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea - RAC Edução Esp (11):103–127
Hong J, Shao-jie Z, Yu H (2010) Research on stability of competitive strategic alliance by analytic hierarchy
process(AHP). In: 2010 International conference on management science & engineering 17th annual
conference proceedings, pp 631–635
Jaouen A, Gundolf K (2009) Strategic alliances between microfirms: specific patterns in the French context.
Int J Entrep Behav Res 15(1):48–70
Ji H, Zhang SJ, Huang Y (2010) Research on stability of competitive strategic alliance by analytic hierarchy
process (AHP). In: International Conference on Management Science & Engineering (17th), November
24–26, Melbourne, Australia.
Jiang X, Li Y, Gao S (2008) The stability of strategic alliances: characteristics, factors and stages. J Int
Manag 14(2):173–189
Kock S, Nisuls J, Söderqvist A (2010) Co-opetition: a source of international opportunities in Finnish SMEs.
Compet Rev 20(2):111–125
Kong HZ, Kong QS (2010) Comprehensive evaluation index system of county characteristic industrial
cluster based on analytic hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on
machine learning and cybernetics (July), pp 11–14
Leask G, Parker D (2007) Strategic groups, competitive groups and performance within the U. K.
Pharmaceutical industry: improving our understanding of the competitive process. Strateg Manag J
745(2006):723–745
Lin C-P, Lin H-M (2010) Maker-buyer strategic alliances: an integrated framework. J Bus Ind Mark
25(1):43–56
Lin GTR, Sun C-C (2010) Driving industrial clusters to be nationally competitive. Technol Anal Strateg
Manag 22(1):81–97
Linde K, Willich SN (2003) How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on com-
plementary medicine. J R Soc Med 96(1):17–22
Lui SS, Wong Y, Liu W (2009) Asset specificity roles in interfirm cooperation: reducing opportunistic
behavior or increasing cooperative behavior? J Bus Res 62(1):1214–1219
Lundberg H (2010) Strategic networks for increased regional competitiveness: two Swedish cases. Compet
Rev 20(2):152–165
Luo X, Deng L (2009) Do birds of a feather flock higher? The effects of partner similarity on innovation in
strategic alliances in knowledge-intensive industries. J Manag Stud 46(6):1005–1030
Luo Y (2008) Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J
46(2003):27–46
Maia FS, Maia TST (2011) Network training andstrategicalliances in the civil construction sector. Espac
Mag 32(2):5–6
123
Martinelli DP, Joyal A (2003) Desenvolvimento local e o papel das pequenas e médias empresas. Manole,
Barueri, SP
Moeller K (2010) Partner selection, partner behavior, and business network performance: an empirical study
on German business networks. J Account Organ Change 6(1):27–51
Niu K-H (2010) Industrial cluster involvement and organizational adaptation: An empirical study in inter-
national industrial clusters. Compet Rev 20(5):395–406
Oprime PC, Tristão HM, Pimenta ML (2011) Relationships, cooperation and development in a Brazilian
industrial cluster. Int J Product Perform Manag 60(2):115–131
Osarenkhoe A (2010) A coopetition strategy—a study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and
cooperation. Bus Strateg Ser 11(6):343–362
Pansiri J (2008) The effects of characteristics of partners on strategic alliance performance in the SME
dominated travel sector. Tour Manag 29(1):101–115
Peng TA (2011) Resource fit in inter-firm partnership: intellectual capital perspective. J Intellect Cap
12(1):20–42
Petter RRH (2012) Modelo para análise da competitividade de redes de cooperação horizontais de empresas.
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná–UTFPR, Ponta Grossa–PR
Porter ME (2004) Estratégia Competitiva: Técnicas para Análise de Indústrias e da Concorrência, 2nd edn.
Campus, Rio de Janeiro
Qin W, Xu Fei, Qin Wei (2010) Instability of strategic alliances: a process-oriented perspective. Manag
Serv Sci (MASS) 70972065:1–4
Radu C (2010) Need and potential risks of strategic alliances for competing successfully. Economia. Seria
Management 13(1):165–196
Ramström J (2008) Inter-organizational meets inter-personal: an exploratory study of social capital processes
in relationships between Northern European and ethnic Chinese firms. Ind Mark Manag 37(5):502–512
Rank ON, Robins GL, Pattison PE (2010) Structural Logic of Intraorganizational Networks. Organ Sci
21(3):745–764
Sacomano Neto M, Truzzi OMS (2009) Posicionamento estrutural e relacional em redes de empresas: uma
análise do consórcio modular da indústria automobilística. Gestão & Produção (UFSCAR, Impresso)
16(4):598–611
Sammarra A, Biggiero L (2008) Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation
networks alessia sammarra and Lucio Biggiero. J Manag Stud 45(4):800–829
Sampaio RF, Mancini MC (2007) Estudos de Revisão Sistemática: Um Guia para Síntese. Revista Brasileira
de Fisioterapia 11(1):83–89
Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K (2005) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market, and organiza-
tional change, 3rd edn. Thomson, West Sussex
Veal G, Mouzas S (2010) Learning to collaborate: a study of business networks. J Bus Ind Mark 25(6):420–
434
Vélez ML, Sánchez JM, Álvarez-Dardet C (2008) Management control systems as inter-organizational
trust builders in evolving relationships: evidence from a longitudinal case study. Account Organ Soc
33(7–8):968–994
Verschoore JR (2010) Programa Redes de Cooperação: uma análise da política pública gaúcha de formação
de redes. Revista Pós Ciências Sociais 7(1):101–116
Verschoore JR, Balestrin A (2008) Fatores relevantes para o estabelecimento de redes de cooperaçăo entre
empresas do Rio Grande do Sul. RAC, Curitiba 12(4):1043–1069
Ward MD, Stovel K, Sacks A (2011) Network analysis and political science. Annu Rev Polit Sci 14(1):245–
264
Wu WY, Shih H-A, Chan H-C (2009) The analytic network process for partner selection criteria in strategic
alliances. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):4646–4653
Yan H, Xu B, Wang C (2008) Study on the innovation process and synergy mechanism of industrial cluster.
In: 2008 International conference on information management, innovation management and industrial
engineering, pp 372–76
Zeng SX, Xie XM, Tam CM (2010) Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance
of SMEs. Technovation 30(3):181–194
Zhang XF (2008) On competition+cooperation relationship among enterprises within an industrial cluster
and its coordination. Int Semin Bus Inf Manag 2008:128–131
123

Anals Regional Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anals Regional Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systematic review: an analysis model for

measuring the coopetitive performance in

The Annals of Regional Science

Ann Reg Sci

Systematic review: an analysis model for measuring

Rodolfo Reinaldo Hermes Petter · Luis Maurício Resende ·

Received: 28 August 2013 / Accepted: 8 July 2014

L. M. Resende · P. P. de Andrade Júnior · D. J. Horst

JEL Classification L14

Faced by constant increases in market demand for higher productivity, innovations in

2 Materials and methods

This is an applied study, with exploratory objectives, which developed a systematic

2.1 Definition of search bases and keywords

Table 1 Searched bases in the

Table 2 Searched bases in the

2.2 Criteria for selection of articles

2.3 Search guidelines

2.4 Selection and comparison of initial set of articles

Fig. 1 Combinations between axes and keywords

Fig. 2 Structural analysis of coopetition in horizontal cooperation networks

2.5 Systematic review

2.6 Final selection and evaluation

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Stratification of obtained data

The presentation of results is based on by the following points: distribution of pre-

3.2 Distribution of pre-selected articles

Field of knowledge of the selected articles: production engineering

Base Combination Journal Article title Year Abstract Keywords

Micro- clustering significantly increases profit. To correct for matching,

Source: the authors

Fig. 3 Distribution of pre-selected journals linked to the multidisciplinary area

Fig. 4 Distribution of pre-selected journals linked to the production engineering area

3.3 Distribution of articles

Fig. 5 Bibliographical portfolio distribution and final selection of journals

Fig. 6 Distribution of articles in relation to the year of publication per base

3.4 Critical success factors and variables

Results through cooperation over time

CSF Variable Authors

Fig. 7 Distribution of CSF citations

You might also like