A Modeling Approach for Getting to Win-Win in Industrial Collaboration under Strategic Coopetition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interorganizational coopetition describes a relationship in which two or more organizations cooperate and compete simultaneously. Actors under coopetition cooperate to achieve collective objectives and compete to maximize their individual benefits. Such relationships are based on the logic of win-win strategies that necessitate decision-makers in coopeting organizations to develop relationships that yield favorable outcomes for each actor. We follow a strategic modeling approach that combines i* goal-modeling to explore strategic alternatives of actors with Game Tree decision-modeling to evaluate the actions and payoffs of those players. In this article, we elaborate on the method, illustrating one particular pathway towards a positive-sum outcome – through the introduction of an intermediary actor. This article demonstrates the activation of one component in this guided approach of systematically searching for alternatives to generate a new win-win strategy. We also present a meta-model for relating i* models and Game Trees. A hypothetical industrial scenario focusing on the Industrial Data Space, which is a platform that can help organizations to overcome obstacles to data sharing in a coopetitive ecosystem, is used to explain this approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".