Exploring the Characteristics of Coopetition Throughout the Coopetition Life Cycle

On the management sciences ground, understanding the trajectory and specificity of the development of phenomena is acknowledged as crucial for rational, planned coordination of actions and activities that should be adapted to the stage at which a given phenomenon is located. In fact, the concept of the life cycle is one of the key concepts in the field of management, including, for instance, marketing management (product life cycle, brand life cycle), innovation management (technology life cycle), and strategic management (industry life cycle). However, among the existing models, none depict the CLC, even though coopetition and each of its phases likely have their own specificities and require different approaches in terms of managerial coordination or leveraging coopetition.

When it comes to the relational perspective, the interest in the relationship life cycle has increased since the seminal works of Ford (1980) and Dwyer et al. (1987). Since then, it is believed that the relationship evolves, for instance, through some sequential and predictable phases of development (the stage-based approach, even though it is not the only one possible, is the dominant one in the area of inter-organizational relationships – Batonda & Perry, 2003). While coopetition falls within the perspective of the inter-organizational analysis (Dorn et al., 2016; Minà & Dagnino, 2024), the phases of coopetition development have not received significant attention from researchers yet. Basically, on the coopetition ground, while Dorn et al. (2016) have utilized the life cycle concept to illustrate the progression of coopetition research, other studies have investigated the life cycle-related factors influencing coopetition, such as the alliance life cycle (Raza-Ullah et al., 2018), industry life cycle (Basole et al., 2015; Park & Kim, 2021; Xu et al., 2021), or ecosystem life cycle (Struckell et al., 2021). Nonetheless, although the life cycle concept emerges somehow in coopetition research, it remains underutilized in the context of coopetition’s developmental trajectory. Therefore, in line with Dahl’s (2014) recommendations, we consider it essential to focus on the CLC, particularly examining changes across its life phases, develop our understanding of the evolution of the coopetition process (Monticelli et al., 2018).

Coopetition is a highly challenging strategy (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014) with a high failure rate (Chin et al., 2008). However, due to the potentially significant benefits for participants - not only in terms of achieving the goals or coopetition performance but also more broadly in firm performance - many (and increasingly more) organizations decide to engage in coopetition (Crick, 2021; Gernsheimer et al., 2021). From a managerial perspective, actions and activities aimed at coordination or behaviors that reduce the potential risk of failure become crucial. In this context, research on factors of coopetition success and durability is essential, including the characteristics of coopetition (Klimas et al., 2023). Given the cognitive gaps regarding the CLC (Dagnino, 2009; Dahl, 2014; Chiambaretto & Fernandez, 2016; Garri, 2021; Klimas et al., 2023a; Minà & Dagnino, 2024), it is worthwhile to explore if those characteristics change over time. The coopetition dynamics, including exploration through CLC perspective (Dahl, 2014), are still recommended as areas for future research (Minà & Dagnino, 2024; Klimas et al., 2023a) – for instance given the perspective of tensions within coopetition, Efrat et al. (2022) argue that coopetition has an impact on the development of tensions since its formation but “more knowledge on the relationship between coopetition formation and the mitigation of tension [overt coopetition utilization – our note], which are crucial for coopetition performance, is needed” (p. 530). In coopetition literature, it is crucial to note the absence of comprehensive research addressing the CLC, especially in recognizing the phases in which coopetition can be implemented, spanning from inception to termination.

All in all, the interest in the CLC seems to be also justified in the light of ongoing discussions regarding the (essential and distinguishing) paradoxical nature of coopetition (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014) being full of dynamic and complex tensions (Albert-Cromarias et al., 2022) that affect coopetitors and coopetition all the time. In particular, the dynamic tensions faced by coopetitors refer to value creation (Ryan-Charleton, & Gnyawali, 2022), value co-creation and capturing (Gelei & Dobos, 2024), value configuration (Camargo & Meirelles, 2024), value appropriation (Manzhynski et al., 2024), value destruction (Albert-Cromarias et al., 2022), or social value devolution (Chim-Miki et al., 2023; Nascimento et al., 2023). Basically, in the context of value, little is known in the temporal perspective and that is why scholars “recommend research on the development of value and its capture over time” (Bouncken et al., 2020a, p. 12). The value-related dilemmas based on the paradoxical nature of coopetitive strategies (Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2024; Camargo & Meirelles, 2024; Raza-Ullah & Kostis, 2020), expose process-oriented approaches which result from balancing between convergent and divergent interests - a cooperative focus on creating more excellent value and a competitive approach to appropriation of benefits from the value created. These value-oriented approaches provide fragmentary mentions of coopetition in terms of changing characteristics, e.g., emotional, behavioral ones (Ryan-Charleton & Gnyawali, 2022) or relational characteristics (Gelei & Dobos, 2024). However, these references are far from attempts at a comprehensive understanding of their variability and changeability over time. Nonetheless, for research on the variability of value creation and appropriation mechanisms to be conducted, we would first need to understand the model of the CLC during which these mechanisms change.

Considering existing findings associating coopetition with the life cycle concept, it is fair to state that while exploring the CLC is justified, no studies have been dedicated to this topic. Dorn et al. (2016) classified coopetition research into three phases: initiation, managing and shaping, and evaluation. These phases diverge in functions and theoretical perspectives, influenced by the delicate balance between competition and cooperation levels (Park et al., 2014; Ritala & Tidström, 2014; Minà et al., 2015; 2020; Fong et al., 2021). This work adopts quite a holistic approach to the life cycle. However, it is primarily conceptual and characterizes coopetition research, not the coopetition process.

Regarding empirical papers incorporating the CLC perspective, they - although fragmentary and qualitative – reveal valuable avenues for research. For instance, Gnyawali and Park (2011) considered the Samsung-Sony case of coopetition and presented a two-stage framework of coopetition’s dynamic evolution, including formation and evolution. This approach, complemented by incorporating a third phase associated with performance, has also been employed by Park and Kim (2021) in their study on the dyadic coopetition among industry giants in the smartphone sector. Furthermore, Tidström and Åhman (2006), based on a longitudinal case study within the construction industry in Finland, outlined the following stages of coopetition relationship: pre-start, harmony, consideration, disengagement, communication, and post-ending. Despite their emphasis on the ending stage, they observed that the process is non-linear, and the ending may start at the very beginning of the relationship, and the ending process may already have begun at a stage of harmony. Building on Tidström and Rajala’s (2016) single case study which concentrates on coopetition practices from a multilevel perspective, the pre-coopetition (pre-start) phase embodied the unintentional condition of coopetition. However, they categorize this phase as the initial one before (2) silent coopetition, and next, (3) active coopetition and (4) forced coopetition. On the other hand, Bonel and Rocco (2007), relying on an Italian case study, concentrated on the final phase of coopetition - the execution, wherein the authors emphasized that “studies focusing on the phenomenon of coopetitive relationship formation or death outweigh those dealing with their evolution” (2007, p. 71). Alternatively, Garri (2021) indicates three stages of coopetition: initiation, knowledge-enhancement, value-co-creation, and enhanced performance-competitive advantage, thus skipping the pre-relational phase and not ending the relationship. In contrast, Fong et al. (2021), through a multiple case study on the relationships among Macau’s tour operators, identified three stages in the evolution path of coopetitive relationships. They, however, included re-coopetition issues as part of this path, specifically highlighting the coordination of competition as a phase preceding the emergence of simultaneous cooperation and competition and expansion of coopetition.

Summing up, besides the exceptions mentioned above, the majority of coopetition literature neglects comprehensive and empirical examination of the evolution of coopetitive relations over the life cycle (Dahl, 2014; Dorn et al., 2016) while “the life cycle of coopetition (…) is rather used as a side issue” (Klimas et al., 2023b, p. 893). Typically, the life cycle is used non-comprehensively, such as focusing on a selected phase of the cycle (e.g., Bonel and Rocco, 2007; Xu et al., 2021), or is considered as a side aspect, for instance, as a change mechanism (Dahl, 2014; Garri, 2021) or control variable (Xu et al., 2021). Moreover, there is a lack of consensus regarding the number of phases in the CLC, their existence, cyclicality, and some research only concentrates on specific phases. Therefore, it can be postulated that CLC necessitates the establishment of a conceptual framework marked by precise coopetition parameters (Chen & Miller, 2012; Dorn et al., 2016), for instance, characteristics describing coopetition in terms of strategic, relational, and behavioral aspects (Klimas et al., 2025).

Coopetition relationships are shaped by the initial expectations of the partners involved, which develop throughout their duration as these relationships are managed (Dorn et al., 2016). Since coopetitive relationships are formed by specific characteristics, these characteristics also evolve throughout the coopetition’s evolutionary process (Klimas et al., 2023) as coopetition is highly dynamic and changes over time (Chiambaretto & Fernandez, 2016). Also, the research on coopetition characteristics indicates their variability, which, when viewed through the lens of the life cycle perspective, may suggest that these characteristics may differ in various phases and, at the very least, may be perceived differently by managers. According to Dorn et al. (2016), as the coopetitive relationship is managed over time, the partners’ expectations change due to the learning process that occurs during its course, as well as the varying experiences of the partners.

The literature on coopetition offers limited insights into how the characteristics of coopetition evolve. Only sparse information can be found suggesting that such changes occur concerning certain characteristics of coopetition, hence understanding the overall variability of coopetition characteristics is essential (Klimas et al., 2023), as different phases of the CLC may influence how these characteristics are perceived by managers from one side and how these characteristics change according to the specific phase of coopetition from other side. For example, the literature focusing on different coopetition’s characteristics shows that coopetition is a dynamic (Czakon et al., 2014; Akpinar & Vincze, 2016; Chen et al., 2019) and paradoxical phenomenon (Park et al., 2014; Dorn et al., 2016; Bengtsson & Raza-Ullah, 2016) where connections between partners change over time also in terms of the intensity of paradoxicality and the speed (Czakon et al., 2014). Next, in coopetition, the successively and longitudinally built trust (one of the most frequently investigated characteristics of coopetition) plays a crucial role as one of the primary mechanisms by which the intensity of coopetition (another characteristic) enhances the performance of relationships (Raza-Ullah & Kostis, 2020) through collaborative experiences (Monticelli et al., 2018). Moreover, the changeable trust serves as a central element in the tensions and conflicts (further two characteristics) that arise within coopetitive environments, making it particularly challenging to establish trusting relationships between direct competitors (Lascaux, 2020). Also given the perspective of paradox theory, it is emphasized that contradictory yet interrelated elements exist under coopetition and endure over time, generating changeable tensions that cannot be permanently resolved but can be managed through cyclical interactions (Manzhynski & Biedenbach, 2023). All in all, it is commonly acknowledged that coopetition is full of tensions and conflicts (Tidström, 2014; Dorn et al., 2016) which, on the one hand, change and on the other hand are triggers for change of coopetition and its specificity (Minà & Dagnino, 2024) and can lead to changes in the development of coopetition, including the transition of coopetition to the next phase of the life cycle. According to Kostis et al., (2024) managing these tensions can change the coopetitive relationship, leading to transition from one phase of coopetition to another. In this context, while mutual dependence (also considered as a coopetition characteristic) is important for the longevity of relationships (another characteristic) and helps understand why firms seek long-term relationships, it may also be the key to understanding how firms navigate these tensions and maintain cooperation over time (Jakobsen, 2020). Although cooperation and competition coexist in coopetition, the intensity of competition and cooperation (other features of coopetition) changes over time (Park & Kim, 2020). As suggested by Dorn et al. (2016), coopetition partners may change their behavior from being more cooperative to becoming more competitive, while others lose interest and reduce their commitment to the partnership. Moreover, Park and Kim (2021), demonstrated that over time, the behaviors of coopetitors and the variations in coopetition strategies they employ change. Given the above, it can be assumed that changes in coopetitors’ behaviors (behavioral characteristics like trust or conflict), coopetitive relationships (relational characteristics like tensions, mutual dependence or coopetition intensity), and coopetition strategies (strategic characteristics including paradoxicality and dynamics) do change over time, and do change across the phases of CLC.

Nonetheless, despite the above, we still have limited understanding of the changes in the coopetition phenomena (Devece et al. 2019; Bouncken et al. 2020a,b; Gari, 2021; Crick & Crick 2021b) and the explanation for its evolutionary development over time (Gelei & Dobos, 2024), including the changes of characteristics assigned to coopetition (Klimas et al., 2023a). Simultaneously, as managers should closely monitor the intentions and activities of individual partners of coopetitive relationship (Dorn et al., 2016), they need to understand how coopetition characteristics change over time. Better knowledge is needed to understand how organizations can effectively manage coopetitive relationships (Manzhynski & Biedenbach, 2023). This may indicate the necessity to provide reasoning for research on the CLC and coopetition characteristics, including the coopetition characteristics specific (or at least identifiable) to a particular phase of the CLC. This paper is our response to fill the research gap related to the hidden logic of coopetition (Minà & Dagnino, 2024), namely, to investigate the characteristics assigned to coopetition through the CLC.

In this perspective, linking CLC and coopetition characteristics, it is noteworthy to consider the relatively new interaction perspective, wherein coopetition is perceived as a continuously evolving inter-organizational relationship that is relatively highly variable over time due to ongoing interactions among engaged coopetitors. These interactions mutually influence each other in real-time and shape the future behaviors and activities of coopetitors as well as their future interactions (Kostis et al., 2024). Adopting this perspective, it is reasonable to assume that interactions will likely impact behavioral characteristics (determined by coopetitors’ actions) and relational characteristics (characterizing coopetitive relationships) of coopetition. It can also be inferred indirectly that, probably over the longer term, strategic characteristics (related to the coopetition strategies adopted by individual coopetitors) may also be influenced. Therefore, from an interaction perspective (Kostis et al., 2024), it can be assumed that characteristics attributed to coopetition will change over time and, consequently, throughout the life cycle of coopetition involving specific partners.

In summary, we argue that investigating the CLC regarding the perceived levels and relevance of coopetition characteristics would be reasoned. Firstly, as coopetition characteristics remain under-researched (Klimas et al., 2023b). Secondly, as changeable nature of coopetition characteristics (Czakon et al., 2014) can be potentially grasped across particular phases of the CLC. Given a more pragmatic perspective, we believe that in-depth exploration of the characteristics related to coopetition enables decisions on what to do (or not to do) to intentionally shape the characteristics over time in order to balance the tensions between cooperation and competition across the CLC and thus efficiently handle coopetition dynamics (Bengtsson et al., 2010a). Furthermore, focusing on the coopetition characteristics can stimulate the emergence of coopetition, and reveal the development process, which may ultimately affect not only coopetition (Basole et al., 2015; Fong et al., 2021) and its success (Klimas et al., 2025) but also firm performance (Minà & Dagnino, 2024).

This study explores a diverse array of variables, with the majority focusing on coopetition characteristics and one specifically addressing the phases of the CLC.

Regarding coopetition characteristics, we explore two strategic (paradoxicality and dynamics), six relational (asymmetry, complexity, intensity, mutual dependence, strength, and tensions), and five behavioral (competition intensity, conflict, formality, investments, and trust) characteristics within the scope of our study. The survey questionnaire adopted the scales developed and tested by Klimas et al. (2025) and thus consisted of altogether 77 Likert-scale-based questions for two strategic characteristics, six relational characteristics, and five behavioral characteristics. The internal consistency of measurements was checked using Cronbach’s alpha, and all alphas taped into the recommended tolerance range ( Table 1) ranging from 0.7 to 0.95 (Bland & Altman, 1997; DeVellis, 2003).

To measure the CLC, due to the deficit of such a model in the coopetition literature, we have chosen to verify and adapt the life cycle model of IOR (Klimas et al., 2023). This verification and adaptation were made using two focused group interviews (FGI) (Millward, 1995), acknowledged as suitable in the context of validation and development of the proposed measurement approach (Powell et al., 1996). Our FGIs were finished and analyzed before implementing our core research investigations as they were used as a preparatory research activity.

The interviews took place in May and June 2022 and were carried out by a research company, with the authors serving as passive observers throughout the study. The interview participants were managers representing manufacturing companies experienced in coopetition, classified as low-tech (LT, first FGI) and high-tech (HT, second FGI) companies. In each interview, six managers participated, and the duration of each FGI was around 120 minutes. The interview guide presented and deeply discussed the course of the CLC concerning the basic model of the inter-organizational relationship life cycle (based on Klimas et al., 2023). During the study, emphasizing the dynamic, developmental, and evolutionary nature of coopetition, the FGI participants were asked to relate to the basic life cycle, including identifying elements that were consistent, different, missing, or unnecessary in the light of their and their companies’ experiences with coopetition strategies, coopetitive relationships, and coopetitive behaviors. Based on the obtained opinions and ongoing discussions, a CLC model (Table 2) was developed and used in the quantitative research.

Importantly, concerning the reference IOR life cycle model (Klimas et al., 2023), an evaluation phase (which was suggested by the FGIs participants and is also additionally consistent with the suggestions of Dorn et al., 2016) and a reactivation phase (which was discussed by managers and is also additionally consistent with the suggestions of Tidström and Rajala, 2016, indicating the possibility of active actions by coopetitors after periods of silence) was introduced into the developed CLC model. First, our interlocutors pointed out the need for temporal evaluation, including the reasoning for its continuation based on mutual engagement, as well as the adequacy of strategic assumptions in the context of market dynamics - “Assessment is crucial! Well, yes, because a change in the market situation might force me to renegotiate contracts with partner, and that’s already a significant factor in the tug of war, or even in breaking the tie altogether” (HT_V). Second, quite typical for participants there is a coopetition reactivation, for instance: “In our case, the first business contact happened a while ago, with an old director, but the cooperation didn’t materialize. It only took place once a new director came on board” (HT_III); “Then, after a few years, we no longer felt like cooperating, because there was still this lingering sense that it wasn’t entirely fair (it refers to the partner’s opportunistic behavior – our note). But when people changed, and the market changed, sometimes it’s worth trying to come back” (LT_II). Additionally, the division of life cycle phases into sub-phases (passive, active, and reactivation) was abandoned; as for the respondents of FGI, the phases are relatively internally coherent, and (at least in their opinions) it was not justified to divide them further.

In the quantitative study, we employed the CLC model, developed through the verification of FGIs as outlined in Table 2, to identify the dominant phase of the CLC and assess the level of individual characteristics across different phases. The following eight potential phases were considered: initiation phase; development phase; maintenance phase; evaluation phase; continuation of cooperation phase; dormant phase; termination phase; and reactivation phase.

It is worth noting that respondents were initially asked to choose and focus on the most important coopetition in their company’s past experiences. Selecting a particular coopetition case was pivotal for determining its developmental phase and evaluating the significance of individual characteristics within that specific coopetition instance. In terms of identifying of CLC phases, considering the variable and evolving nature of coopetition, respondents were requested to specify which of the outlined CLC phases (Table 2) most accurately encapsulates the specificity, state, character, and development stage of the chosen coopetition case.

The first stage of the research entailed carefully selecting a sample group of 1200 representatives. Our large-scale surveying was run in one specific national and industry context, namely manufacturing enterprises. Given the scarcity of studies spanning multiple industries (Strese et al. 2016; Estrada & Dong, 2020), the survey was run in a group of manufacturing enterprises with no specific industry restrictions. As coopetition is claimed as applicable and beneficial for firms operating in a wide range of industries (Gast et al., 2015), however when it comes to the previous research, this dominates in the high-tech firms (Basole et al., 2015; Garri, 2021; Park & Kim, 2021) (also focused on coopetition characteristics – e.g. Bouncken et al., 2020; Jakobsen, 2020; Xu et al., 2021). Considering that coopetition is claimed to be industry sensitive phenomena (Czakon et al., 2014) we saw it important not to limit the scope of our study to one industry. Instead, we decided to investigate manufacturing companies. Moreover, given the asymmetrical focus on high-tech firms of previous research interests, we decided to collect and compare the data from manufacturing companies classified either as high-tech or low-tech according to the Polish Classification of Business Activity (https://www.biznes.gov.pl/pl/tabela-pkd). To facilitate comparisons among quotas associated with manufacturers varying in technological intensity, the selection process entailed including companies that met predefined study criteria, thereby categorizing them as representatives of either the Low-Tech or High-Tech sectors. The Low-Tech sector included businesses from two sections of the Polish Classification of Business Activities (PKD), while High-Tech from eleven sections. Information was gathered from managers who represented industrial firms with a background in engaging in coopetition from both low-tech and high-tech industrial firms.

It is worth highlighting the deliberate narrowing of the target sample to one country, which is typical and even recommended in coopetition research (e.g., Meena et al., 2023). This approach also helps minimize the variation in the included sub-samples in aspects other than the intended one, namely the level of technological advancement.

Between December 2022 and March 2023, quantitative data were acquired by a mixed-mode approach, utilizing CATI, CAWI, and CAWI supported by the phone. A reputable research agency conducted the process (under sound supervision of the research team) and successfully received a higher number of questionnaires - a total of 1231. These questionnaires were obtained from 909 low-tech firms and 322 high-tech firms, where respondents were 600 managers responsible for inter-organizational relationships, 626 executive employees engaged in inter-organizational relationships, and 5 marketing specialists.

Before proceeding to the primary analyses focused on the research questions (RQ1–RQ3), the normality of the distribution of all core variables was assessed. Considering the sample size (N=1231), normality testing of variable distributions was conducted using two tests: Lilliefors (applied to large samples) and Shapiro-Wilk (typically used for samples below 2000 observations). The results of both tests for all characteristics indicated a lack of normality in the distributions (p-value below 0.05, as shown in Table 3), implying the necessity of employing non-parametric ANOVA during the final analyses and using median values (rather than means) for comparisons.

The main analysis was conducted in three stages, each addressing a specific research question. First, the phase of the life cycle in which the surveyed firms undertake coopetition was determined using frequency analysis. In the second stage, by utilizing the median, the meaning of sets of strategic, relational, and behavioral characteristics attributed by managers across different phases of the CLC was determined. Finally, in the third stage, employing non-parametric ANOVA, specifically the Kruskal-Wallis test, initially, the study examined whether the significance of characteristics varies significantly across different phases of CLC. Then, multiple comparative tests were employed to confirm and specify the results (including identifying phases between which the perception of the significance of individual characteristics significantly differs).

The first research question aimed at exploring if all of the assumed phases of CLC (Table 2) are identifiable in practice and in which phases of the life cycle the surveyed manufacturing companies are (ref. to RQ1). Our analysis initially focused on identifying the life cycle phase of coopetition about which managers assessed the importance of the examined characteristics assigned to coopetition phenomena. As the results (Table 4) indicate, most surveyed coopetitions are in the maintenance phase (N=392 firms, 31.84%). The least number of respondents identified coopetition that had already ended as the key coopetition in evaluating its characteristics (N=16 firms; 1.3%).

Interestingly, a significant 25.75% of responses (N=317 firms) pertained to coopetition in the continuation phase. In general, continuation has been shown as the most common scenario following the evaluation phase (other possible scenarios at this stage of development: dormancy 3.45% and termination 1.30% of the total responses), which may suggest a relatively high satisfaction with the assessment of the coopetition progress in the earlier stages of the life cycle. Considering the technological advancement of surveyed firms, one may notice that it is hard to find differences in terms of the life cycle phases of the utilized coopetition.

Next, considering both the characteristics and the phases of CLC, we aimed at recognition of the perceived relevance of the characteristics across the coopetition development path (ref. to RQ2). In general, the results suggest that all considered characteristics are deemed significant, with medians consistently above the midpoint of the measurement scale, across all phases of the CLC - Table 5. Specific exceptions arise, notably with conflict and asymmetry, as they generally exhibit the least significance across individual phases compared to other coopetition characteristics. On the one hand, conflict in the initiation, termination, and reactivation phases seems to be considered unimportant for managers (medians below the midpoint). On the other hand, asymmetry seems to be perceived as not so relevant in evaluation, dormancy, and reactivation.

Concerning individual phases and levels of significance attributed to various strategic, relational, and behavioral characteristics, it can be observed that there is considerable variability in the importance of these characteristics. On the one hand, the generally perceived relevance of all of the characteristics varies across the stages of CLC, and it is the highest in the maintenance and evaluation phases (whereas just slightly lower in the development and continuation) while it is the lowest in the termination phase (whereas just slightly higher in the dormancy phase). Conversely, varying significance levels are attributed to different characteristics depending on the phase of the CLC. Furthermore, diverse characteristics are identified with the highest and lowest importance in the opinion of the surveyed managers.

In the initiation phase, managers accord the highest importance to trust, which may be crucial for initiating collaboration with partners that are (often direct) competitors. Simultaneously, conflict is perceived as the least significant, potentially owing to its limited emergence at this stage or being overlooked by the emphasis on a shared goal and other arguments in favor of coopetition. Then, in the development phase, paradoxicality, formality, and trust are deemed most important, while dynamics appears to be the least relevant. The significant role assigned to paradoxicality and formality may stem from the real operational-level collaboration involving the actual transfer of resources (including intangible ones) between competitors, which may require special attention to formal solutions.

According to managers’ opinions in the maintenance phase, the extreme importance of characteristics is shaped similarly to the development phase. However, in addition to trust and formality, strength is also important. Dynamics continues to be perceived as the least important, possibly because it is inherently integral to coopetition (Czakon et al., 2014; Klimas et al., 2023), and thus, it is accepted and tolerated but also it may be minimized through the strong formalization of relationships and trust-based coordination mechanisms.

In the evaluation phase, the specificity of coopetition appears to gain particular importance, as four characteristics reach the highest ranks: paradoxicality, strength, formality, and trust. Dynamics continues to be the characteristic with the least perceived importance. Overall, in the evaluation phase, all characteristics are attributed the highest significance compared to other phases, which may indicate their crucial role in the development path of coopetition (the further trajectory depends on its progress: continuation, dormancy, or termination), confirming the assumptions made by Dorn et al. (2016).

If coopetition is continued, trust and formality are consistently perceived as the most important, while investments are considered the least important. This may be due to the maintenance of existing coopetition, its goals and assumptions, where no new, changed, or increased mutual investments may be required.

Then, if after evaluation coopetition goes into a dormant phase, an overall decrease in the perceived importance of all considered characteristics can be observed. Moreover, dynamics, often considered a characteristic of relatively low importance in previous development phases, exhibits the highest perceived significance for coopetition in this phase. Complexity and conflict are characterized by the least perceived importance during dormancy, which is quite logical as the interactions are passive (if any). Following the evaluation, coopetition may also be terminated. In this case, formality assumes the greatest importance, likely due to the necessity of fair settlement and the definitive end of cooperation between competitors without harm to either party. Conflict is assigned the least significance (the lowest median among all characteristics and all considered phases at 3.08), which is understandable when cooperation ends, as the matter of being in conflict with a partner with whom paths diverge becomes inconsequential.

Then, if coopetition is reactivated, the characteristics perceived as important situation seems to stabilize. Formality is again perceived as the most important, while conflict is seen as the least important. It is noteworthy to observe the level of perceived importance of trust, which in this phase (excluding the situations of dormancy or termination where there is no resource exchange and pro-cooperative interactions) has a value below 5. This may signal that confidence has emerged without requiring specific “care” for inter-organizational trust, but it may also suggest a lower level of trust in coopetition, thereby indicating a higher risk of opportunistic behaviors.

When it comes to the median levels across low-tech and high-tech firms, these levels are generally very close, although slight differences can be observed. Regarding the phase in which characteristics are generally attributed the greatest significance, for high-tech firms, it is the development phase (followed by the maintenance phase), while for low-tech firms, it is the maintenance and evaluation phases. Formality and trust are the characteristics with the highest attributed significance in both types of firms. In the case of high-tech firms, trust seems to have slightly greater significance than formalization, whereas for low-tech firms, it is the opposite. In both cases, the attribute with the least significance in managers’ opinions is asymmetry.

Finally, our study aimed to verify whether the perception of the importance of characteristics attributed to coopetition significantly changes throughout the CLC (ref. to RQ3). The brief analysis of the medians of the perceived relevance of considered characteristics suggests that they differ across the development phases of coopetition. Nonetheless, a brief analysis of descriptives is not sufficient to say that the differences are significant; further analyses were carried out. Considering the results of testing the assumption of normal data distribution, the analysis of differences in the perception of the importance of particular characteristics started with nonparametric ANOVA using the Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparison analyses.

For the collected data, the values of the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic range from 9.06 to 56.38 and are statistically significant for twelve out of thirteen characteristics assigned to the coopetition phenomenon.

The only exception is asymmetry, for which managers’ perceptions do not show any statistically significant differences regarding individual phases of coopetition. This means that, in general, the perceptions of the rest of the considered characteristics show significant differences in the life cycle phases. However, the testing does not indicate between which phases or what type of differentiation in assessments occurs. Therefore, multiple comparison analyses were carried out.

The results of multiple comparison tests in a quantitative-visual form are presented in summary in Table 6. All in all, our results point to our three (out of thirteen) characteristics for which the perceived meaning does not change across the CLC: asymmetry, tensions, and competition intensity.