Strategic alliance as a particular form of coopetition
BEATA KOZYRA, PHD
Vice-Rector Poznan University College of Business POLAND
Abstract: In the article the author made an attempt to answer the question whether strategic alliance is a special form of coopetition. The answer to this question will allow to define in more detail both the concepts of strategic alliance and coopetition. It will also help to regulate the terminology issue. In the article the main definitions of both concepts were introduced as well as some main characteristics (partners, forms of co-operation, benefits and others) and then confronted. The final results of the confrontation lead to the following conclusion: coopetition is a wider concept and strategic alliance is a specific case of coopetition.
Key Words: coopetition, strategic alliance, dynamics between companies.
The descriptive-analytic method was used based on carefully selected professional literature as well as the author’s own critical analysis of the mentioned management area.
The characteristics of strategic alliances and coope- tition based on definitions and general descriptions were compared for the first time.
Present, unpredictable environment determines, regardless of top managements’ efforts, many threats and opportunities for development. In these extremely dynamic surroundings one of the key competencies of top managements is the ability to spot danger as well as chances in the right moment and skillfully take advantage of them.
Professor Bogdan Wawrzyniak in one of his books wrote: Average company lifetime is considerably shorter than its potential capabilities. Longer – and even very long – are flexible companies, which are able to renew ¹.
To paraphrase professor Wawrzyniak’s quotation we can say: Longer – and even very long – are flexible companies, which are able to adapt flexibly to very changeable conditions and to enter into relations with other players on the market.
Today we can observe that more and more compa- nies decide to establish different kinds of relationships with one or a few potential market partners. It is not a new trend. Heterogeneity of co-operation forms gives a wide range of possibilities. However, while making a choice, organizations must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each acceptable form and choose such a model which will be the most compatible with strategy, structure, resources and capability of the specific company.
Knowledge and understanding of concepts such as strategic alliance and coopetition as well as the ability to define and describe these concepts seem to be very helpful in such choices.
Knowledge and understanding of strategic alliance and coopetition concepts from a theoretical point of view are also of great importance. In order to develop the relationship between organizations – one of the areas of management study, it becomes essential to explain, among others, these two above mentioned ideas. So far there has been no uniform and plain un- derstanding of strategic alliance and coopetition, thus there is no clear cut distinction.
TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMPANIES
W. Czakon gives a general division of the possible relationships between companies². He distinguishes four relationships between entities: co-existence, co- operation, competition and coopetition (Figure 1). Co- existence is understood as a lack of any mutual influence between the companies. The aims of the companies are determined independently from the other company. Co- operation takes place when the companies engage in in- formation, resource or social exchange. Companies have common aims and the scope of the differences between their individual aim is limited³. Co-operation is viewed by K. Blomqvist, P. Hurmelinna and R. Seppanen as a relationship in which both sides mutually interact by means of sharing the resources and possibilities or use them as leverage for mutual gain4.
Competition, greatly simplified, is understood as aiming at the same objectives which results in a clash of interests. Thus, the realization of the plans of the one side is only possible in case of the other side’s failure. S.D. Hunt defines competition as a dynamic situation which arises when a couple of entities on a given market fight for insufficient resources and pro- duce and sell similar products or services5.
Coopetition is, according to W. Czakon, the co- operation between competing companies in which co-operation is mixed with competition6.
Everyday confrontation with rapidly growing globalisation of markets and competition, increase of the importance of rapid and flexible adaptation to change as basis to achieve competitive advantage and create ever larger partnerships with suppliers, clients or competitors, force companies to look for radical changes in management7. These phenomena determine the search for more and more perfect strategies. Co- existence or competition does not bring the expected results. This is why more and more often companies choose to develop by means of establishing mutual relationships between one another, particularly among competitors. Co-operation between competitors is not a new phenomenon. Many strategic alliances re- searched, also by the author, were and still are es- tablished between rivals. What is thus the difference between a strategic alliance and coopetition also called coopetition?
Let’s look at a slightly different division of relation- ships between competitors. Three types of relation- ships between companies can be distinguished on the basis of their character and scope: non-interfering, mutual and dependent (Figure 2).
An example of a dependent relationship is a take- over of one company by others. It is a transaction that guarantees one of the entities’ control over another company. The company that is taken over does not lose its legal status as an entity but becomes dependent on the company that took it over.
Fusions are examples of mutual relationships. Companies unite in order to create a new company, they share their resources and responsibility and aim at reaching common goals8. They both lose their previous independence and status.
A strategic alliance is an example of a non-inter- fering relationship. The essence of a strategic alliance is the fact that none of the partners has total control over the mutual venture.
M. Romanowska shows strategic alliance from a somewhat different perspective as she describes competition as a situation in which rivalry dominates the relationships between organizations. When co- operation is the dominating phenomenon, companies will have the tendency towards integration. Integration here is probably understood as fusion or takeover. Whereas alliance takes place when rivalry does not cease…, but is temporarily and consciously limited in a given area9. Strategic alliance as a type of relation- ship between competition and integration is shown in Figure 3.
The above divisions clearly distinguish strategic alliance as a separate type of mutual relationship between companies. It is the starting point for further reflections on strategic alliance.
THE DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
There are many definitions in the literature. M. Wat- kins views strategic alliance as a union of two or more companies that remain independent. Companies share the benefits and the control. The essence of strategic alliance is that none of the partners has total control over the common venture10.
B. Gomes-Casseres shares a similar opinion prov- ing that strategic alliance is an incomplete contract between separate companies in which each partner has a limited control over the contract11.
Other researchers, B. Garrette, P. Dussauge, focus rather on the rationale of the co-operation. They claim that alliances are used in order to realize common goals yet maintaining their strategic independence and protecting their own interests12.
S. Sudarsanam defines strategic alliance as any contract or agreement according to which two or more companies co-operate in order to achieve certain com- mercial aims13.
J. Cygler expands the above definition: …strategic alliances are long-term and intentional agreements between business partners concluded on the basis of the principles of partnership and adequacy of benefits derived from the union all the while maintaining the parties’ organizational independence14.
According to M. Romanowska, strategic alliance is co-operation between existing or potential competi- tors that influences the situation of other competitors, suppliers or clients within the same or related sectors15.
A similar view is given by J. Supernat, who claims that strategic alliance is a union between independent companies interested in the same area of business16.
The definition given by the authors of Strategor17 can be treated as a continuation of the above. They claim that strategic alliance is a union established between companies which are actual or potential com- petitors. The main aim of such a union is achieving a better competitive position among the partners. The aim can also include fusion of previous partners or cession or acquisition of a given area of the partner’s activity.
Taking all the above mentioned definitions and many examples of strategic alliances described in the literature into consideration, the author of this article has described the characteristics of strategic alliance bearing in mind its most important features18:
• co-operation between two or more companies
• co-operation whose aim is to realize particular goals of the partners; it aims at satisfying the needs and benefits both sides
• co-operation in diversified forms on the basis of a contract or agreement
• co-operation between actual or potential com- petitors and organizations from different cells of the value change
• non-interfering and reversible forms of co-op- eration; co-operation in which the companies’ basic activities remain independent
• long-term co-operation but in a limited window of time
• co-operation that consists in a mutual venture or a particular type of activity that the partners engage in
• co-operation that consists in a proportional combination and use of resources, compe- tences, skills and means of both sides necessary to achieve the goal
• co-operation that makes it possible to prepare the partners for fusion or takeover of some area of activity or the entire company
TYPES AND AREAS OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
In order to answer the question in the title, it is relevant to identify the types and areas of strategic alliances. It will allow to determine the vast list of criteria owing to which the comparison of strategic alliance and coopetition will be carried out.
Different experts on strategic alliance identify vari- ous types of the phenomenon.
B. Garrette and P. Dussauge, already mentioned before, offer an interesting division of types19. They divide alliances into two basic groups: alliances be- tween companies that do not compete with one another and alliances between competitors. Under each of the groups they subsume several types of alliances which is shown in Figure 4.
The most extensive typology of alliances is pro- vided by Romanowska20. She distinguishes informal alliances (an agreement without a written document) and formal ones. She further divides formal alliances into two main groups: equity strategic alliance and non-equity strategic alliance. A detailed division of formal alliances on the basis of Romanowska and my own work is shown in Figure 5. Equity strategic alliance include:
A joint venture is a company founded by a domestic company with a foreign company or by a foreign com- pany in the country in order to carry out commercial activity. These can include the following companies:
• foreign, in which there are partners from different foreign countries without the participation of the organizing country,
• international, in which there are partners from different countries including the country of the headquarters,
• mixed, in which the shares are held by foreign companies and the government of the country with the headquarters of the venture21.
Examples22: Servisco (Poland) and Deutsche Post AG (Germany) – the alliance allowed to use the Ger- man experience within management but also to expand onto foreign markets.
General Motors (USA) and Toyota (Japan) – joint car production in USA of “Chevrolet Nova” in the new company NUMMI.
Non-equity strategic alliance are divided into capi- tal alliances and agreements.
Capital alliances include the purchase of minor- ity shares by one of the partners or mutual purchase of the partner’s shares. Shares of the company of the the partner’s company.
Examples23: Ponar Żywiec (Poland) and Ultra-Tech (Korea) – after the process of privatization of the Pol- ish company, Ultra-Tech became one of its strategic partners as it purchased 20% of shares in the company. Bank Przemysłowo-Handlowy obtained controlling interest – 50% of shares as the main creditor, Samsung (Korea) and Array (USA) – the Korean company pur- chased 20% of shares in Array, which specializes in the technology of microchips for digital processors that are used in the production of multimedia, Ford Motor Co. and (USA) and Mazda (Japan) – Ford purchased 25% of shares in Mazda, or Renault (France) and Nissan
(Korea), shown in the figure below, Volvo (Sweden) and Renault (France) – until the failed fusion in 1994 and Honda (Japan) and Rover (Great Britain).
From the point of view of strategic alliance License is a form of co-operation that consists in giving the right to use the knowledge, know-how or technology to the partner.
Examples24: Van Pur (Poland) and Brau-Union (Austria), which signed the co-operation and license agreement for brewing beer under the international brand of Kaiser and Steffl in Poland, or AT&T-USA and Philips – Holland: Philips adapted the ESS 5 opera- tor of AT&T to European standards in exchange for selling its public operators in Europe.
Franchising is a system of merchandise, service or technology sales which is based on close and con- tinuous co-operation between legally and financially separate and independent companies: the franchisor and its particular franchisees25. In other word – the practice of using another firm’s successful business model. The franchisor makes their knowledge, technology, company brand and procedure accessible to another company which is obliged to act according to certain rules.
Examples26: McDonald’s, Levis, Kodak Express.
Strategic alliance in the form of a contract is either a written or oral agreement of the parties which is aimed at establishing common goals of a venture and resulting rights and duties. This kind of contract usually involves activities such as: research, marketing, production or distribution.
Examples27: Optimus S.A. and Compaq Computer – distribution of products and technology from Com- paq on the Polish market by means of sales channels from Optimus, service and installation of product, sharing big projects, IT ventures and capital invest- ments in Poland by Compaq by means of Xtrade, a company founded by Optimus that deals with elec- tronic B2B transactions; LOT-Poland and British Airways-Great Britain: agreement on shared service on the flights Warsaw-Manchester and Cracow-London, coordination of flight schedules and simplification of ticket purchase and check-in procedures at the airports; Siemens-Germany and IBM-USA: shared production of electronic components later installed and sold by each company separately.
Association agreements (interest groups, networks)
is a form of co-operation between a large number of big and small companies which have a common goal. Clus- ters that have cropped up in the recent years in Poland are a particular form of network because according to the definition given by the Ministry of Economy a cluster is a flexible form of horizontal co-operation between 3 groups of entities: companies, research institutes and the authorities that create an environment which facili- tates intensive interaction and co-operation processes between the particular players of national and regional systems of innovation28. The main aim of such group of interest or network is to share the potential of the partici- pants and to protect their activity from the competition.
Examples29,30: Work group Bluetooth SIG (Special Interest Group), which includes: Ericsson, INTEL, IBM, Nokia and Toshiba. The task of the group was to develop standards in terms of connectivity between computer, mobile telephone and stationary telephone, in other words wireless technology. Dolina Lotnicza association which includes 90 companies whose activity is at least partly connected with the aviation sector. The aim of Dolina Lotnicza association are i.a.: organisation and development of cost-effective supply chain, development of research, skills and qualifications within aviation and influencing the policy in issues of aviation industry.
REASONS AND BENEFITS OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
What is known from numerous studies carried out by experts31 and by the author herself32, strategic al- liances usually result from a decision of a company which has problems with maintaining competitive advantage on its own.
Among the most important reasons and benefits that lead the companies to form strategic alliances there are reduction of costs, access to new technology and markets. More information is presented in Figure 6.
DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF COOPETITION
Although the topic of coopetition (coopetition) is not entirely new, there are not many definitions of the phenomenon. The notion of coopetition was popula- rised by the American researchers A. Brandenburger and B. Nalebuff, who explained the notion on the basis of their theory33.
The most common definition to crop up in various publications is the one offered by M. Bengtsson and S. Kock. They claim that coopetition involves parallel relations of competition and co-operation between the competitors – Coopetition is a dynamic and paradoxical relation which arises when two companies co-operate together in some areas, such as in strategic alliances, but simultaneously compete with each other in other areas34.
Ch. Lechner, M. Dowling and I. Welpe add that coopetitive relations are of a continuous and compre- hensive character35.
A. Lado, N. Boyd, S. Hanlon define coopetition as a synthesis of management which links two opposing strategies, co-operation and competition36.
According to J. Cygler coopetition is a type of relation between competitors in which there are si- multaneous streams of co-operation and competition. The competing partners should trust each other and co- operate by means of sharing information, experience but also the risk. This is why coopetition is viewed comprehensively: as streams (and not individual agreements or projects)37.
M. H. Morris, A. Kocak and A. Ozer add that coopetition is a relationship which is characterised by trust, engagement and mutual benefits38.
Also M. Rosińska highlights the significance of trust in coopetitive relationships. Partners that remain in such a relationship assume that: only entities which trust each other fully are joined. The loss of trust means that the given entity does not meet the requirements of participation in a coopetitive relationship39.
G. B. Dagnino and G. Padula claim that coopetition is the common strategy to create value and simultane- ous competition in the distribution of value40.
G. B. Dagnino, S. Yami, F. Le Roy, W. Czakon define coopetition as a system of actors that act due to partly coinciding interests and aims41.
W. Czakon, this time with K. Mucha-Kuś, M. Sołtysik expand this definition by developing three important aspects of coopetition: 1) interdependence of the companies is both a source of creating value and the reason for its division; 2) interdependence between the companies is based on a game with positive and change sums which should bring mutual benefit though not necessarily equal for the partners; 3) a game with positive and change sum in which the interdependence between the companies is based on partly coinciding interests42.
M. Zineldin views coopetition as a situation in which companies co-operate with each other and co- ordinate their activities in order to achieve aims but, simultaneously, compete on the basis of the same rules as with other companies43.
TYPES AND AREAS OF COOPETITION
According to J. Cygler coopetition can appear in different forms both with shares and without, capital and non-capital, so from simple licenses to more com- plex agreements such as franchising but also outsourc- ing, installation or technical service44. Identical types of co-operation were described for strategic alliance. In fact, in the typology of alliances such types of co- operation as outsourcing, shared installation or tech- nical service are not explicitly stated, yet the author assumes that having analysed many case studies which describe strategic alliances in the research within this field45, the notion of agreement is broad and includes all sorts of agreements on co-operations.
Therefore it can be said that the enumerated types of coopetition will be identical with the types of stra- tegic alliances which have been described in Types and areas of strategic alliances.
REASONS AND BENEFITS OF COOPETITION
According to J. Cygler the most important benefits of membership in coopetition include46:
• access to rare tangible and intangible resources
• learning, access to advanced technology
• acquiring scale and scope
• accessing new markets
• limitation of risk
• time saving
• increase of bargaining power
• easier diversification of activity
• increase in organizational and strategic flexibility
• increase in added value for customers
• lowering of costs and improvement of financial results thanks to benefits
M. Zineldin highlights that all cooperants can benefit from coopetition owing to the phenomenon of synergy47.
W. Czakon goes further and emphasizes that the principal condition of coopetition is a partial congruity of the partners’ interests and goals48.
All of the above mentioned benefits of coopeti- tion enable better results of the company by means of increased and improved use of potential and im- provement of competitive position. A vast majority of the benefits is similar to the benefits that result from strategic alliances.
ALLIANCE VS. COOPETITION – CONCLUSIONS
Some researchers who delve into the notion of coope- tition use the notions of coopetition and strategic alliance interchangeably in their publications or to some extent present the two as similar. According to G. B. Dagnino A simple two-sided coopetition becomes clear when we analyse two-sided strate- gic alliances such as B&R consortia49… A complex two-sided coopetition becomes totally clear when we take into consideration many recent alliances in the car sector (BMW-Daimler Chrysler, Ford-PSA, Honda-Isuzu, Fiat-GM, Opel-Renault, PSA-Toyota, Opel-Suzuki and Volkswagen-Porsche) which offer a satisfactory representation of hitherto described structures of coopetition50. However, D. R. Gnyawali and Byung-Jin (R) Park, after Harbison and Pekar, claim that The popularity growth of coopetition is obvious and results from the fact that more than 50% of co-operation relationships (strategic alliances) takes place between companies from the same sector, that is, among competitors51. Therefore, coopetition the car sector (BMW-Daimler Chrysler, Ford-PSA, Honda-Isuzu, Fiat-GM, Opel-Renault, PSA-Toyota, Opel-Suzuki and Volkswagen-Porsche) which offer a satisfactory representation of hitherto described structures of coopetition1. However, D. R. Gnyawali and Byung-Jin (R) Park, after Harbison and Pekar, claim that The popularity growth of coopetition is obvious and results from the fact that more than 50% of co-operation relationships (strategic alliances) takes place between companies from the same sector, that is, among competitors2. Therefore, coopetition and strategic alliance are connected with each other.
Bearing in mind previous descriptions of the two notions, we can describe the features of the two “phenomena”. A list of these features is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. A list of features of alliances and coopetition that result from all the definitions and characteristics.
The confrontation presented in the table leads to the conclusion that many features of strategic alliance and coopetition are similar. 17 out of 27 features are the same for both phenomena which gives 63% of congruity between the two phenomena. This means that both notions describe similar types of relationships between companies.
Nevertheless, the confrontation yielded some dif- ferences between strategic alliance and coopetition that could point be used to point out that one of the notions is broader and one is only a more detailed type of co-operation.
On the basis of the differences which also include the slightly different characters of the relations – visible in point no.5: Multidimensional character (taking into consideration both co-operation and competitive relations), it seems that coopetition is a superior concept. According to the author, coopeti- tion is a notion that describes the phenomenon of broadly understood co-operation between entities which emphasizes both their co-operation and simul- taneous competition. Strategic alliance seen in such perspective constitutes merely a part of the contexts of inter-organizational relationships and focuses on the co-operation and benefits that result from it. Strategic alliance by definition is of a unidimen- sional character and focuses merely on co-operation without building appropriate competitive relations. In the traditional approach to economic sciences com- petition is totally in opposition to co-operation3. The notion of strategic alliance is well-suited in this clas- sical approach. However, coopetition is a relationship between players in a market which involves features of co-operation and competition4. This phenomenon, though of paradoxical nature, becomes a typical ele- ment of contemporary approach to functioning in a market, thus a growing interest of experts in economic sciences in this phenomenon.
To sum up, the thesis stated in the title of the article that strategic alliance is a specific case of coopetition is confirmed. Strategic alliance is one of the types of co-operation that is possible between entities and constitutes one of the elements of the general phenom- enon which is coopetition. According to the author, the notion of strategic alliance can be used both for alliances as well as cases of coopetition. However, the notion of coopetition does not constitute a substitute for the notion of strategic alliance.
The conclusions formulated in the final part of the article allow not only to specify the described notions but also facilitate the differentiation between strategic alliance and coopetition (coopetition). They also allow to better understand the connections that take place in economic practice.
Standardization of the notions of coopetition and strategic alliance facilitates the identification of the type of relationships and a precise location of the type of co-operation between companies.
On the basis of the established systematization and characterization of the notion of coopetition, the choice of examples for further studies will permit to obtain reliable comparisons and objective conclusions.
1 Op. cit.
2D. R. Gnyawali, Byung-Jin (R) Park, Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitiors for technological innovation, “Elsevier Journal, 2011, p. 651.
3 P. Adler, C. Heckscher, L. Prusak, Building Collaborative
1. Adler P., Heckscher C., Prusak L., Building Collaborative Enterprise, “Harvard Business Review”, July–August 2011.
2. Bengtsson M., Kock S., “Coopetition” In Business Networks – Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously,” Industry Marketing Management” 2000, vol. 29. Enterprise, “Harvard Business Review”, July–August 2011, p. 95–101.
4 M. Bengtsson, S. Kock, Co-opetition in business networks – to cooperate and compete simultaneously, “Industrial Marketing Management”, 2000, 29(5), p. 411–426.
3. BlomqvistK.,HurmelinnaP.iSeppanenR., Playing the co-operation game right – balancing trust and contracting, Technovsation, Vol. 25 No. 5.
4. BrandenburgerA.M.,NalebuffB.J.,Coopetition, New York, Doubleday 1996.
5. Cygler J., Alianse strategiczne, Difin, Warszawa, 2002.
6. Cygler J., Kooperencja przedsiębiorstw, czynniki sektorowe i korporacyjne, SGH, Warszawa, 2009.
7. CyglerJ.,Typologiapowiązańkooperencyjnych przedsiębiorstw, Studia i Prace, Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów, Zeszyt Naukowy 77, Szkoła Główna Handlowa, Warszawa, 2007.
8. CzakonW.,Dynamikawięzimiędzyorganizacyj- nych przedsiębiorstwa, AE, Katowice, 2007.
9. CzakonW.,Mucha-KuśK.,SołtysikM.,Relacje koopetycji w tworzeniu efektywności rynku, Studia i Prace, Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów, Zeszyt Naukowy 116, Szkoła Główna Handlowa, Warszawa, 2012.
10. Dagnino G. B., Coopetition Strategy A New Kind Of Interfirm Dynamics For Value Creation, EURAM–TheEuropeanAcademy of Management, Second Annual Conference – “Innovative Research in Management”, Stockholm, 9-11 May 2002.
11. Dagnino G. B., Padula G., Competition Strategy: A New Kind of Interim Dynamics for Value
12. Creation, Second Annual Conference: “Innovative Research in Management”, The European Academy of management, Stockholm, 9-11 May 2002.
13. Dagnino G. B., Yami S., Le Roy F., Czakon W. Strategie koopetycji – nowa forma dynamiki międzyorganizacyjnej, “Przegląd Organizacji”, nr 6/2008.
14. Garrette B., Dussauge P., Strategie aliansów na rynku, Poltest, Warszawa, 1996.
15. Ghoshal S., Arnzen B., Brownfield S., A Learning Alliance between Business and BusinessSchools: Executive Education as a Platform for Partnership, “California Management Review”, Fall 1992, vol. S5, No.1.
16. Gnyawali D. R., Park B. (R), Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation, “Elsevier Journal, 2011.
17.Gomes-Casseres B., The Alliance Revolution. The new Shape of Business Rivalry, ”Harvard University Press”, London 1996.
18. Hunt S.D., economic growth: should policy focus on investment or dynamic competition?, EuropeanBusinessReview,Vol.19no.4.
19. Kozyra B., Alians strategiczny jako wstęp do fuzji lub przejęcia, Biblioteka Naukowa Instytutu Lotnictwa, Warszawa 2005.
20. Lado A., Boyd N., Hanlon S., Competition, Cooperation and the Search for Economic Rents: A Syncretic Model, “Academy of Management Review”, 1997, 22(1).
21. Lechner Ch., Dowling M., Welpe I., Firm Networks and Firms Development: The role of the relational Mix, “Journal of Business Venturing”, 2006, vol. 21, (4).
22. Luo Y., Coopetition in International Business, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen 2004.
23. Morris M.H., Kocak A., Ozer, A., Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance, “Journal of Small Business Strategy”, 2007, vol. 18(1).
24. Romanowska M., Alianse strategiczne przedsiębiorstw, PWE, Warszawa 1997.
25. Rosińska M., Kooperacyjne globalne sieci biznesowe – specyfika kreowania i transferu innowacji, E-wydawnictwo 2011, http:// www.ewydawnictwo.eu/Document/ DocumentPreview/388.
26. STRATEGOR, Zarządzania firmą. Strategie. Struktury. Decyzje. Tożsamość, PWE, Warszawa 1996.
27. Sudarsanam S., Fuzje i przejęcia, WIG PRESS, Warszawa, 1998.
28. Supernat J., Zarządzanie strategiczne – pojęcia i koncepcje, Kolonia Limited, Wrocław 1998.
29. Watkins M., Joint Venture & Strategic Alliances, materiały z seminarium na Harvard Business School, 22.10.1999.
30.Wawrzyniak B., Odnawianie przedsiębiorstwa. Na spotkanie XXI Wieku, Poltext, Warszawa, 2000.
31.Zineldin M., Co-opetition: the organization of the future, “Marketing Intelligence&Planning” 2004,Vol. 22, No. 7.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franczyza http://www.klastry.org/ http://www.dolinalotnicza.pl/en/1/1/
BEATA KOZYRA, PHD Vice-Rector Poznan University College of Business, POLAND