Ansari, Garud & Kumaraswamy (2015)

Question 1

What are the 3 themes developed in this paper?

Answer 1

First, a disruptor confronts three co-opetitive tensions 2 –
intertemporal, dyadic, and multilateral.

Second, the disruptor continually adjusts its strategy to address
these co-opetitive tensions as they arise.

Third, as the disruptor’s innovation and relational positioning
within the changing ecosystem co-evolve, the disruptor has greater latitude to frame its innovation as being sustaining to the operations of ecosystem members

Question 2

What is co-opetition?

Answer 2

to survive and grow, firms that introduce innovations that disrupt existing
ecosystem dynamics (henceforth disruptors) may need the support of the very incumbents whose
technologies, products or business models they disrupt. In other words, to graft its innovation into an
existing ecosystem, the disruptor needs cooperation from the incumbents who, threatened by the
innovation, may resist and even retaliate (Markman and Waldron, 2014). The presence of such simultaneous forces for cooperation and competition represents co-opetition

Question 3

What is the first theme?

Answer 3

Theme 1: Co-opetitive tensions and challenges in disrupting existing ecosystem

Our first theme underlines the disruptor’s dilemma, i.e., the tensions and challenges disruptors confront in seeking the support of the very firms they disrupt. An analysis of the data revealed three co-opetitive tensions – intertemporal (i.e., short term vs. long term), dyadic (i.e., within dyadic relationships),
and multilateral (i.e., across relationships spanning multiple dyads or multiple ecosystem sides).

Question 4

What is intertemporal co-opetition?

Answer 4

We define intertemporal co-opetition as a situation in which a
newcomer’s innovation can offer ecosystem members benefits that might materialize only in the future
whereas the innovation’s disruptive effects are felt immediately. Particularly threatening to incumbents is
the uncertainty over how the disruptor’s innovation will redistribute revenues and profits among
ecosystem members. Consequently, it is likely that the newcomer will not gain support for its innovation.

Another definition:

how a disruptor has to gain cooperation from incumbents it disrupts with promises of benefits that might accrue
only in an uncertain future

Question 5

What is multilateral co-opetition?

Answer 5

While it was challenging enough to contend with intertemporal and
dyadic co-opetition, it was all the more difficult to manage them multilaterally (i.e., across multiple dyads
or ecosystem sides). To successfully navigate multilateral co-opetition, a firm must manage relationships
across a set of interdependent stakeholders, with changes in one relationship affecting others

Question 6

What are the consequences of continual strategic adjustments?

Answer 6

Continual strategic adjustments made by the disruptor to address emergent co-opetitive tensions
have consequences for its technology, capabilities and, eventually, its place in an ecosystem that itself is
evolving

Question 7

How are disruptive innovations double-edged swords?

Answer 7

Disruptive
innovations are ‘double-edged’ swords – innovations that are breakthroughs with the potential to spawn
new markets also imply breaking apart existing ecosystem arrangements, and fueling adverse reactions
from incumbents

Question 8

What is the dilemma that the disruptor confronts?

Answer 8

Consequently, the disruptor confronts a dilemma; how to gain support and acceptance
from the very ecosystem incumbents who stand to be disrupted. This dilemma is all the more difficult to
resolve due to tensions generated by intertemporal, dyadic and multilateral co-opetition.

Question 9

How can a disruptor manage co-opetitive tensions?

Answer 9

s. A disruptor may choose to accept the tensions and harness these
to its advantage. Alternatively, the disruptor may switch dynamically over time to deal with one or the
other tension in turn, as exemplified in the notion of pivoting.
Or, with time, the disruptor may offer a new frame that helps resolve the
underlying tensions

Question 10

What was the longitudinal perspective of TiVo?

Answer 10

As our findings demonstrate, TiVo resorted to each of these approaches at various points till such time it was able to reframe itself as a connector facilitating collective value creation within
the ecosystem. Such a longitudinal perspective enables an exploration of how tensions among different
constituents of an ecosystem interact and evolve over time and, how a disruptor might transcend the
traditional dualism between cooperation and competition

Question 11

How can a disruptor employ soft power and hard power?

Answer 11

In performing a juggling act to secure the support of ecosystem incumbents, a disruptor employs a mix of “soft power” and “hard power”. Soft power involves the exercise of what Fligstein (1997) termed social and political skills to generate desired outcomes. On the other hand, hard power involves the use of threats, sanctions or other coercive strategies to secure compliance (Wilson, 2008). TiVo employed both. It forged collaborative relationships, made adjustments to manage co-opetitive tensions and spillovers, and leveraged its growing brand and technological capabilities to generate
relational advantage

Question 12

What does the transformation of the disruptor’s technological platform represent?

Answer 12

Transformation of the disruptor’s technological platform represents changes in its overall coopetitive capabilities. With such developments, the nature of value creation and appropriation too may change from a zero sum game to a positive sum game (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). Correspondingly, a shift occurs from an “egocentric” view wherein the introduction of an innovation
breaks things apart to an “allocentric” view that emphasizes bringing actors together through collaborative networks

Question 13

When are a co-opetitive tensions not an easy task for a disruptor?

Answer 13

In sum, navigating the minefield of co-opetitive tensions is not an easy task for a disruptor, especially a start-up firm with limited resources

Question 14

When will incumbents may be receptive to make accommodations with the disruptor?

Answer 14

As these examples from different industries illustrate, it is not unusual for disruptors to switch to a positive sum approach of engaging with industry incumbents to mitigate tensions and potentially gain acceptance. However, as our findings suggest, incumbents may be receptive to making accommodations
with the disruptor only if it is able to attract a critical mass of consumers to its innovation.

Question 15

What is the dilemma that new entrants introducing disruptive innovations confront?

Answer 15

However, new entrants introducing disruptive innovations into an existing ecosystem also confront a dilemma – how to gain the support of the very incumbents that stand to be disrupted. Complicating
matters, many aspiring disruptors also experience “liability of newness”, including lack of legitimacy, customer indifference, incumbent skepticism and lack of co-specialized assets, all of which undermine their efforts to introduce and establish their innovations

Question 16

What are the three things that this paper extends concerning the literature on disruptive innovation?

Answer 16

By taking a disruptor’s perspective, we add to an understanding of the challenges confronted by disruptors and extend the literature on disruptive innovation.

First, while it has been acknowledged that disruption is not a one shot event or “a carefully planned forward march” but
rather a process (Christensen, 2006; Christensen and Raynor 2003), our analysis highlights the various co-opetitive tensions that disruptors confront during the process.

Second, our analysis shows how a disruptor might address these tensions, further extending classical perspectives that view innovations as being either disruptive or sustaining (Christensen, 1997). In contrast to such essentialist views, our analysis demonstrates the strategic actions available to a disruptor to frame its innovation in alternative ways (cf., Gurses and Ozcan, 2014), and the use of soft and hard power to secure cooperation from incumbents (cf., Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009). Specifically, such reframing involves a change in emphasis from the “disruptive” aspect of the innovation that upstages established incumbents, to the beneficial aspect of the innovation that can enhance the value generated for and by various incumbents within the ecosystem.

Third, while disruptive innovations have often been characterized as having an impact on specific incumbent firms (typically direct competitors), our analysis demonstrates how such innovations may affect the entire ecosystem by reconfiguring the relational interdependencies among various ecosystem
members

Question 17

What leads to a continual shift in the balance between cooperation and competition?

Answer 17

Co-opetition between two firms is walking “a fine line between cooperating with partners in good faith and maintaining a posture of vigorous competition with rivals”

Besides such dyadic co-opetition, we highlight how disruptors must navigate dependencies and consequent spillovers across multiple dyads and multiple ecosystem sides (i.e., multilateral co-opetition) to realize the value proposition inherent in the innovation.
This leads to a
continual shift in the balance between cooperation and competition

Question 18

What is the contribution to the literature on industry ecosystems and strategy as process?

Answer 18

Studies on industry ecosystems have shown how interdependent firms must work together to cocreate value, and how the success of one firm depends on the success of others (Adner et al., 2013). However, there is a presumption that pre-meditated roles and links among ecosystem members exist and remain stable over time. By contrast, our study highlights the evolution of the disruptor’s innovation and,
along with it, the evolution of existing rules, roles and relationships within the ecosystem, as the disruptor continually adjusts its strategy to deal with emerging co-opetitive tensions. This co-evolutionary process continues till an overall collective frame emerges within the ecosystem, one that can hold together the
different actors around the innovation in a delicate balance.