3.5. Advanced Search and Content Analysis
The initial data of search results using “safety” and “security” as the keywords in coopetition-related studies yielded few papers. To refine the number of papers for the presentable sample for further in-depth screening, an advanced search via Publish and Perish (Google Scholar Database) was performed using the keywords “coopetition”, “safety”, “security”. Among the results (around 1000 sources), relevant papers were selected (not books, conference papers or editors’ notes) according to these main criteria: (1) high citation index, (2) abstract, title and keywords must be in accordance with the relevance of the search. The search results ended with data where papers were different in terms of citation (from 812 citations per paper to 0), which can be divided as follows: the first 13 results had more than 100 citations, the second cohort of 15 papers had a citation index more than 50, and so on. After eliminating books, conference papers, editors’ notes and irrelevant studies (by screening the paper), the decision was made to select papers with a citation number ≥40 per paper. As a result, the outcome was 20 papers (the maximum number of citations is 812 and the minimum is 40 citations per paper), which, is twice as many as initial data results from Scopus database. It made possible to compare papers from Google Scholar and Scopus databases in terms of keywords using, research findings and new areas of research that can be considered as perspective for further investigations in the coopetition field. In total, the final sample is 27 papers, and in our opinion, it is helpful to confirm the idea about the link between coopetition, safety, and security aspects.
Firstly, we should mention that high citation number as a criterion was chosen (instead of the high ranking of authors, for instance) as an indicator of the dissemination of the results and, therefore, the impact of the publications. As it was observed [44
], the citation index serves as an incentive for data sharing and encourages researchers to present their results among scholars.
Secondly, in a process of analysis, it was revealed that the keywords “cybersecurity” or just “cyber” appeared many times in several papers. It inspired us to include “cyber” as a keyword for further analysis. The full manual counting of keyword usage resulted in a performance system of papers as follows (see Figure 6
). This simple technique enables us to draw conclusions about the relevance of the papers to overlapped areas of the research, to track the appearance of the keywords and intensity of their use over time. Thus, despite the fact that the period of analysis was the last 10 years, the most relevant papers have started to appear since 2014, except for the paper by Singh et al., published in 2007 [45
], and its predecessor by Singh and Atrey—in 2005 [46
]. The intensity of keywords and awareness of the interests in the mentioned area raised as well. However, we cannot use this approach to prove the importance of certain papers in contrast to others. Moreover, our observations suggest that the intensity of the use of keywords indicates a specific, niche study. Multidisciplinary articles tend to affect many aspects and different areas of research, and therefore the number of keywords in such articles is lower compared with niche ones.
However, the distribution of keywords presented in Figure 8
allows us to say that a snapshot (7 initial papers from the Scopus database, marked with red dots) gives similar results as well as the final sample, which means that few relevant papers are sufficient for making a conclusion about the future challenges in multidisciplinary research.
However, to provide a meaningful contextual study of the papers to verify the interconnections between coopetition, safety, and security issues and their promises for further interdisciplinary research, a qualitative approach was chosen. We revealed that the Google Scholar Database offers papers as relevant if the keywords are presented in the reference list. Only reading the paper, its abstract, main findings, and contributions, and analysis of its content may give an understanding of its value for further study.
“Coopetition” as a keyword was assumed as a leading term for revealing related studies, and content-analysis in detail was performed for papers listed as follows (following the ranking presented in Figure 6
Thus, starting with [47
] we should note in particular the scale and scope of the research, in which authors analyzed 131 records from 57 companies and revealed that there is a positive association between threat sharing relationships and innovation level, and the cybersecurity threat-intelligence sharing relationships are characterized by coopetition between loosely integrated complementary solutions. In other words, coopetition is much easier to be established between partners with complementary resources, and cybersecurity can be an area of implementation of coopetition strategy.
In the study [48
] it was proven for publicly listed cyber-security and IT firms that participate in sharing IT security-related information have higher profitability and lower costs than non-participating IT firms (in short and in a long-run term). Later, the same team of researchers argued that there are few studies on how IT security strategy impacts firm performance and more investigations, in particular, theory-based empirical research, are needed, especially when the companies continue to engage in “various forms of cooperation, alliances and coopetition” [49
The paper published by a research team united several Coopetition Schools [50
] on the investigation of the coopetition capability generalized the ideas about security as a driver for knowledge sharing. According to the researchers, a “greater sense of security leads to greater willingness to share knowledge (and) higher creativity” [50
] in a process of coopetitive interactions.
It is interesting that not all types of coopetition pursue innovation, as was proved in [51
]. The same paper presented new areas of research that need the attention of the scholars, such as security-safety standards development for coopetition alliances. A case study in the mentioned paper revealed that at the competencies level, there is a need to create new services in the sphere of security and media platforms “in order to meet mid-term operator’s need” [51
]. Authors presented their view of telecommunication sector development and emphasized that topics related to end-to-end services like e-health, e-security, digital homes, digital enterprises and digital cities are urgent for further implementation of coopetition principles.
An empirical study on the coopetition paradox, which was mentioned earlier [30
] presented some aspects of behavioral responses that were related to safety and security issues. During the survey the responders admitted that safety and security are the most important in the process of sharing knowledge in a process of collaboration. Therefore, to engage participants in the innovation process it is necessary to develop a balanced system of knowledge sharing and retention.
In one of the earliest papers, the superiority of coopetition over competition was proved in the context of managing supply chain security [52
], which became an area of active investments and R&D for many types of the industries. The joint investments approach performed by supply chain suppliers leads to chain security and resilience, as was argued in the same study [52
The latest advancements of cyber-physical systems (CBS) in manufacturing and their future potential became a focus in [53
]. CBS have been implemented actively in many spheres, such as transportation, smart homes, robotic surgery, aviation, infrastructure and defense, where security is one of the main challenges. Security is closely related to safety, according to the authors [53
], and coopetition may be cater for further development for CBS, along with other initiatives like Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 [54
], Industry 4.0 [55
], Factory of the Future [56
An investigation on promising areas for future research for sourcing of business process and information technology services was done in [57
] and it was argued that cybersecurity is one of the biggest challenges that organizations and individuals have to face and yet is one of the most unexplored; therefore, authors think that there are at least two aspects that deserve attention [57
]: competences loss is the first. For instance, the problem of sharing and losing some critical information can be crucial for business, as a company may lose competencies in value chain development when constantly using outsourced IT-services. One more aspect is important for outsourcing contracts–they should be articulated in terms of ensuring security and compliance. We agree that not every company can afford its own IT service development, and because of the diversity of IT-services in the market, to develop own IT-solutions is not cost-effective. Following offered logic, we may add that is why cybersecurity and information security management coupled with project management can shape the organizational architecture and may influence significantly the choice of the partners for collaboration and coopetitive R&D projects.
The earliest study in the area which combines coopetitive interactions and security in the multi-sensor environment was done by Singh and Atrey [46
], and later an in-door experiment in a sphere of security proved the necessity of coopetition between sensors [45
]. This revolutionary thought about cooperation and competition between sensors (cameras in this case), not humans or organizations, was clearly identified as a better approach in comparison to ‘only cooperation’ or ‘only competition’. The authors encouraged further investigators to extend the proposed framework for visual and non-visual sensors, which brings us again to the perspective of coopetition for CPS and their applications.
New concepts of value-based supply chain appeared recently. For instance, Berti & Mulligan [58
] in their study of the nature of competitiveness of small farms and their organizational strategies concluded that strategic alliances and strategic networks towards shared value creation are one promising direction for further study. They offered “food hubs” as a special form of alliances and as intermediary organizations that have a coordinating function articulated in many tasks serving farmers, food processors, distributors, retailers and consumers and aimed to create “shared value” for mutual economic and social benefits. Further development of this idea is possible with the development of e-commerce platforms that connect small suppliers and enable transactions for consumers. Digital Food Hubs is a very promising disruptive technology that can allow to scale up a business without high capital investments, to overcome time limits, to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration between participants [58
]. This phenomenon, related as to coopetition, similar to the cybersecurity issues, is just one of the examples of emerging trends in technologies and research.
The issues of security and safety are interrelated and diverse, as well as studies in this sphere; for instance, we should mention promising contribution to blockchain-based framework by offering ‘cloudchain’, designed and developed by the research team [59
] using the idea of coopetition for benefits of both as cloud providers, as well as users of smart contracts. The model offered in the paper [59
] provides the best strategies in terms of transaction costs, time and reputation value. Authors argue that security concerns may be eased through the management of information sharing by a centralized trusted third party. But as we see at that point, the more complicated technology is for value development and deliver, more significant unexpected results could appear, and concerns about security arise more often.
Other studies use the term “coopetition” to a lesser extent but are not least fruitful in terms of findings. It is necessary to mention the study of [60
], who developed an Analytic Hierarchy Process model for IoT (Internet of Things) Applications where security was named as one of the critical issues and technical requirements, and still ongoing challenges.
Coopetition is not mentioned in the study of Fuggetta and di Nitto [61
], but they mentioned “openness” as the necessary condition of a search for new knowledge in a sphere of software development which is complex and multifaceted. Openness and exit the “zone of comfort” to combine the best solutions of computer science and software engineering research is considered by authors as a possible way for further investigations. We may add to this that this process can be facilitated under coopetitive interactions in R&D between software producers and engineers.
A new emerging trend in knowledge sharing, such as ‘crowdsourcing’ was recognized as a promising incentive in a sphere of biomedicine [62
], which led to blurring the boarders of scientists community and changed the role of patient from a research subject to a data provider or even an expert. These emerging themes and new incentives are expected to be coordinated as integrative research, where many participants take part, which in our view is quite close to our understanding of coopetitive interactions.
Busse’s work [63
] is mostly concentrated on sustainability-related conditions of supply chain management from the perspective of the buyer, and collaboration between buyer and supplier can be one of the mediating mechanisms to reach new standards in supply. Though Busse offered dyadic relationships to achieve the goals, the author argues that security issues can become a “bottleneck” in a process of interactions.
Separate aspects of coopetition organizational development and ideas related to security and safety were developed in several studies, such as development towards multiteam systems [64
], collaborative networks and other forms of cooperation in the manufacturing the security-related products [65
], safety-related challenges in a tourism sector [66
], entrepreneurship and strategy in the informal economy [67
], knowledge sharing at an individual level [68
] or at level of multinational corporation [69
], quality assurance in software ecosystems through the partnership of the actors [70
], or role of financial safety in a process of R&D [37
Sharing economy is an ideology, a strategy and a stream in the academic literature that offers multiple solutions for decentralized systems, as well as raises questions of safety support in addition to quality according to customers’ needs. Airbnb as one of the sharing economy start-ups was analyzed in [71
], where transactions were perceived as a risk, a threat to residential communities and existing business-models at the beginning. Later, this business-model proved its viability, and new start-ups appeared in contrast to traditional firms in the tourism sector. Author [71
] assures that coopetition strategy is a promising direction for further development of the industry that will enable to use the opportunities of cooperation inside of the sector at many levels and beyond.
In general, the competitiveness of business entities depends on their ability to identify and mitigate the uncertainties of the environment, which is crucial in supply chain risk management offered by the research team [72
]. In their work, Vilko and his co-authors [72
] generalized and structured different types of informational uncertainty, and did not mention coopetition at all, but we argue that coopetition can be one of the tools for mitigating the risks in supply and logistics management.
Detailed deductive analysis of the findings in the studies allowed us to structure the main trends in research and publishing as follows (Please see Table 3
) by clustering them into 8 groups by content and findings. The general overviews without implementation for certain industry were excluded. As we see, Industry 4.0, cybersecurity, supply chain management and even biomedicine may become an area for successful implementation of coopetition strategy or certain coopetitive interactions.
The biggest clusters are the most dynamic in terms of the number of papers, age of publications (2014–2018 for Industry 4.0, and 2013–2018 for cybersecurity); other clusters are formed by one-two papers in a field and the most recent publication was in 2016. We should conclude that these two areas of future research in the coopetition field related to security and safety aspects may be identified as the leading clusters.
Comparing the findings from terms evolution analysis (Please see Figure 6
) in the coopetition research and insights provided via content-analysis of recent papers on coopetition-related safety and security issues (Please see Table 2
), we may assume the existence of several main trends. Cloud computing, information sharing, adaptive control systems are the newest terms in coopetition studies and “software development” unites them. Industry 4.0 and Cybersecurity as two main clusters provide ideas for new combinations of further research. We believe that issues that researchers will deal with in the near future will include:
Joint software development projects performed via coopetition
E-services and e-security provided by competitors through joint R&D
Cyber-physical systems development within the global partnership in the context of Manufacturing Partnership (MP)
Security challenges & knowledge and threat sharing paradox
Security & safety standards development for coopetition alliances
IT-solutions for coopetitive interactions
Collaboration with agents and cooperation within multiagent systems
Joint investments and joint start-ups in the context of Industry 4.0.
We believe that including more papers from Google Scholar will leave the results approximately the same. Thus, the results proved the thought about the necessity of concentrating efforts of researchers, and what is more important, of practitioners on security challenges and innovative decisions using the coopetition idea. This proves once again that airlines and aircraft manufacturers should design coopetitive decisions towards safety and security in the near future. We cannot suggest that Boeing and Airbus will be united for joint cybersecurity projects, but we may assume at least that the movement among airlines towards common and alternative safety standards (not FAA) will be started soon if it has not already been done. The joint software development project can be a core for the coopetitive agreements in the market, but to confirm or deny the possibility of the market evolution of that kind, further qualitative studies are needed.
The generalization of the future research trends will allow us to attract the practitioners and unite their efforts, as well as the efforts of the researchers, in a process of decision-making towards a secure and safe future within a coopetition framework.