Exploring the Characteristics of Coopetition Throughout the Coopetition Life Cycle

International Journal of Contemporary Management

Volume 61 (2025): Issue 1 (March 2025)

By:

Patrycja Klimas, Michał Nadolny, Sylwia Stańczyk and Karina Sachpazidu

Open Access

|Sep 2025

Figures & Tables

Normality and descriptives of raw data

Coopetition characteristics	Normality tests					Descriptives

	N	max D	p-value Lillefors	W	p-value Shapiro-Wilk	Mean	Confidence −95%	Confidence +95%	Median	SD
Strategic characteristics

Dynamics	1231	0.113	p < .01	0.972	0.000	4.125	4.065	4.185	4.286	1.067
Paradoxicality	1231	0.072	p < .01	0.976	0.000	4.806	4.760	4.852	4.857	0.828
Relational characteristics

Asymmetry	1231	0.103	p < .01	0.975	0.000	3.960	3.917	4.003	4.000	0.769
Complexity	1231	0.102	p < .01	0.974	0.000	4.500	4.439	4.561	4.600	1.090
Intensity	1231	0.070	p < .01	0.983	0.000	4.554	4.506	4.601	4.500	0.849
Mutual dependence	1231	0.076	p < .01	0.981	0.000	4.658	4.608	4.708	4.600	0.902
Strength	1231	0.064	p < .01	0.986	0.000	4.928	4.882	4.975	4.875	0.833
Tensions	1231	0.104	p < .01	0.980	0.000	3.589	3.529	3.648	3.600	1.065
Behavioral characteristics

Competition intensity	1231	0.073	p < .01	0.987	0.000	4.586	4.530	4.641	4.500	0.993
Conflict	1231	0.078	p < .01	0.989	0.000	4.374	4.307	4.440	4.167	1.191
Formality	1231	0.098	p < .01	0.941	0.000	4.760	4.693	4.828	5.000	1.204
Investments	1231	0.098	p < .01	0.977	0.000	4.551	4.492	4.610	4.600	1.057
Trust	1231	0.093	p < .01	0.982	0.000	5.043	4.996	5.090	5.000	0.838

Kruskal-Wallis tests - the p-value for multiple comparisons (two-sided)

Phases of CLC	I	D	M	E	− C	− Dr	− T	R	Main results	Main managerial implications
STRATEGIC - DYNAMICS

Initiation (I)		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.088	1.000	1.000	The perception of the meaning of dynamics generally increases during the development of coopetition, being significantly higher in the development phase than in the dormant phase and also higher in the maintenance phase than in the termination phase. However, it significantly decreases when coopetition transitions from dormancy to termination.	The significance of coopetition dynamics seems to become more pronounced after the evaluation phase. This is a moment when it is worth paying more attention to it.
Development (D)	1.000		0.082	1.000	1.000	0.004	1.000	0.508
Maintenance (M)	1.000	0.082		1.000	1.000	0.888	0.006	1.000
Evaluation (E)	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
− Continuation (C)	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.040	1.000	1.000
− Dormancy (Dr)	0.088	0.004	0.888	1.000	0.040		0.003	1.000
− Termination (T)	1.000	1.000	0.006	1.000	1.000	0.003		0.945
− Reactivation (R)	1.000	0.508	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.945
STRATEGIC - PARADOXICALITY

Initiation		1.000	0.355	1.000	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.004	The perception of paradoxicality remains relatively stable, with exceptions in phases that may follow the evaluation. Particularly, in the dormancy phase, it is perceived as significantly less important than in the initiation and maintenance phases. It is also noteworthy that paradoxicality is evaluated as more significant in the reactivation phase than in initiation, continuation, or termination.	The interplay of competition and cooperation appears to be particularly important in all active phases of coopetition. Therefore, addressing paradoxes remains crucial continuously until coopetition is dormant or terminated.
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.138	1.000	0.222
Maintenance	0.355	1.000		1.000	0.526	0.014	0.243	0.087
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	0.526	1.000		0.000	1.000	0.005
− Dormancy	0.000	0.138	0.014	1.000	0.000		0.000	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	0.243	1.000	1.000	0.000		0.005
Reactivation	0.004	0.222	0.087	1.000	0.005	1.000	0.005
*RELATIONAL - ASYMMETRY*

Initiation	In light of the Kruskal-Wallis test results, “Asymmetry” does not show any significant differences with respect to individual phases of coopetition (test statistic = 9.06; p-value = 0.248).								The perception of the importance of asymmetry shows no variability during the duration of coopetition. Furthermore, throughout the CLC, it is assessed as relatively less significant.	The low weights assigned to asymmetry, coupled with the absence of differences in its perception, suggest that asymmetry should not be a barrier to forming coopetition and maintaining it over the long term.
Development
Maintenance
Evaluation
− Continuation
− Dormancy
− Termination
Reactivation
RELATIONAL - INTENSITY

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.036	1.000	0.063	Regarding the perceived relevance of coopetition intensity, it significantly decreases in dormancy phase when compared to initiation and continuation phases. Another significant difference refers to increase of its perception between continuation and reactivation.	As the meaning of coopetition intensity is rather stable across the CLC, it deserves continuous monitoring. Nonetheless, managers should be aware that if coopetition is reactivated, then the perceived meaning of its intensity may gain in strength.
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.482	1.000	0.290
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	0.371	0.141	1.000	0.165
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	0.833	1.000	0.353
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	0.371	1.000		0.002	0.773	0.010
− Dormancy	0.036	0.482	0.141	0.833	0.002		0.067	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.773	0.067		0.107
Reactivation	0.063	0.290	0.165	0.353	0.010	1.000	0.107
RELATIONAL - COMPLEXITY

Initiation		0.545	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.002	1.000	1.000	As coopetition develops, the perception of its complexity increases. However, the significant increase comes when coopetition taps into dormancy phase (ref. to initiation, maintenance, continuation, and termination phases).	Given that the perception of coopetition intensity increases across the phases of CLC, managers should be ready for the need of more intense coordination of more complex coopetition relationships. Only if coopetition is dormant, due to the passive nature of coopetition in this phase coordination may not be at the top of their interest.
Development	0.545		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	0.030	1.000	1.000
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.026	1.000	1.000
− Dormancy	0.002	1.000	0.030	1.000	0.026		0.009	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.009		1.000
Reactivation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
RELATIONAL - MUTUAL DEPENDENCE

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.021	1.000	0.032	Mutual dependence is the next relational attribute for which its perception increases together with coopetition development but decreases if coopetition turns into a dormant or terminated relationship and increases again if coopetition is reactivated.	Our study provides evidence that mutual dependency is perceived as important and increasing if coopetition is active. For the managers, it means that if coopetitive relationships are utilized, they should remember that firm’s activity, including its strategic movements are not fully independent from the activity and strategic movements of coopetitors.
Development	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.632	1.000	1.000	0.447
Maintenance	1.000			1.000	0.406	0.072	0.585	0.078
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.631
− Continuation	1.000	0.632	0.406	1.000		0.001	1.000	0.004
− Dormancy	0.021	1.000	0.072	1.000	0.001		0.001	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	0.585	1.000	1.000	0.001		0.006
Reactivation	0.032	0.447	0.078	0.631	0.004	1.000	0.006
RELATIONAL – STRENGTH

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	The perception of the meaning of coopetition strength develops systematically. The majority of significant differences in its perception refer to two phases. Firstly, the perception of its relevance decreases significantly in dormancy (if compared to initiation, maintenance, continuation, and termination). Secondly, the perception of its relevance significantly increases in reactivation (if compared to all of the phases excluding evaluation and dormancy).	Given our results regarding the level and perception of the meaning of coopetition strength, managers should be aware that the strengths develop across the CLC, and it will be harder to terminate the relationship at hoc. It may suggest to the need to build up a high level of relational capability, including the capability of ending the relationship (Mitręga & Pfajfar, 2015).
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.110	0.703	0.016
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	0.000	1.000	0.000
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	0.440	1.000	0.051
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.001	1.000	0.000
− Dormancy	0.000	0.110	0.000	0.440	0.001		0.000	1.000
− Termination	1.000	0.703	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.000		0.000
Reactivation	0.000	0.016	0.000	0.051	0.000	1.000	0.000
*RELATIONAL - TENSIONS*

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	Our analysis shows the perception of tensions as not significantly changeable across the CLC.	Considering that perceived relevance of tensions remain significantly unchanged, continuous monitoring of tensions is recommended. Given the considerable body of knowledge in the area of tensions, it seems that particular attention should be paid to monitoring tensions related to information flows.
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Maintenance	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.759	1.000	1.000
Evaluation	1.000	1.000			0.521	1.000	0.463	1.000
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.521		0.245	1.000	1.000
− Dormancy	1.000	1.000	0.759	1.000	0.245		0.176	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.463	1.000	0.176		1.000
Reactivation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
*BEHAVIORAL - COMPETITION INTENSITY*

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.376
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.249	Another attribute which perception was found as significantly unchangeable across the coopetition development path there is competition intensity. Even though the box plot shows a slight decrease in the termination phase, this decrease of its perception is not significant.	The perception of competition intensity determined by competitive actions undertaken by coopetitors does not change significantly in the coopetition process. It is recommended to remember that coopetition link the firm has with competitors and that is why the firm should be ready for opportunistic behaviors all of the time.
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.404
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.574
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.870	1.000	0.052
− Dormancy	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.870		1.000	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.319
Reactivation	0.376	0.249	0.404	0.574	0.052	1.000	0.319
BEHAVIORAL - CONFLICT

Initiation		0.010	0.156	0.258	1.000	0.603	1.000	0.001	The perception of the role of conflict increases together with coopetition development, so long as the coopetitive relationship is active. On the one hand, its perception significantly decreases in the termination phase. On the other hand, its perception significantly increases in reactivation (when compared to initiation, maintenance, continuation, and termination).	Our results suggest that managers should be aware of continuously growing role of conflict across the CLC. Notably, they should consider, that the role of conflict probably will gain in importance if their firm decide to reactivate coopetitive relationship.
Development	0.010		1.000	1.000	0.337	1.000	0.001	1.000
Maintenance	0.156	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.001	0.048
Evaluation	0.258	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	0.108	1.000
− Continuation	1.000	0.337	1.000	1.000		1.000	0.496	0.013
− Dormancy	0.603	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.166	0.643
− Termination	1.000	0.001	0.001	0.108	0.496	0.166		0.000
Reactivation	0.001	1.000	0.048	1.000	0.013	0.643	0.000
BEHAVIORAL - FORMALITY

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.003	1.000	1.000	Regarding the box plots for all of the considered characteristics assigned to coopetition, the perception of the relevance of formality takes the most stable form. Indeed, its perception decreases only when coopetition turns into a passive form, mainly in dormancy but also in the termination phase.	Formality is perceived as highly important across the CLC (the only exception is the dormancy phase). From a managerial standpoint, it means that all the time formal arrangements and hierarchical coordination mechanisms should have a priority.
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.523	1.000	1.000
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	0.016	1.000	1.000
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	0.478	1.000	1.000
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.006	1.000	1.000
− Dormancy	0.003	0.523	0.016	0.478	0.006		0.010	0.480
− Termination	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.010		1.000
Reactivation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.480	1.000
BEHAVIORAL - INVESTMENTS

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.677	1.000	1.000	The perceived investments remain rather stable. The perception of their relevance significantly decreases in the continuation phase when compared to the level reached in the maintenance and dormancy phases.	Managers should be ready for continuous investments of both tacit and material resources across the CLC as their perceived meaning is significantly lower only if coopetition in continued (probably the investments made so far are sufficient) or turns into dormant (as it takes passive form or relationship).
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	0.010	1.000	0.058	1.000
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	0.010	1.000		0.013	1.000	1.000
− Dormancy	0.677	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.013		0.055	1.000
− Termination	1.000	1.000	0.058	1.000	1.000	0.055		1.000
Reactivation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
BEHAVIORAL – TRUST

Initiation		1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.012	0.688	0.000	Trust in the perception of managers is successively developed across the CLC. Nonetheless, its perceived importance significantly decreases if coopetition become dormant or is terminated. Notably, trust is revealed as perceived as significantly more important if coopetition is reactivated (ref. to comparison to the levels assigned to it in initiation, development, maintenance, continuation, and termination phases).	Our study supports prior claims about meaningful role of trust in coopetition. Therefore, managers should take care of building it up in the subsequent coopetition phases. Moreover, our study shows that the perception of its relevance significantly increases if coopetition is reactivated. Therefore, if the firm decides to reactivate coopetition, it should pay very special attention to trust-building mechanisms.
Development	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.009	1.000	0.000
Maintenance	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	0.021	0.022	0.000
Evaluation	1.000	1.000	1.000		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.266
− Continuation	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000		0.001	1.000	0.000
− Dormancy	0.012	0.009	0.021	1.000	0.001		0.000	1.000
− Termination	0.688	1.000	0.022	1.000	1.000	0.000		0.000
Reactivation	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.266	0.000	1.000	0.000

Phases of coopetition adopted by manufacturing companies

Phases of CLC	Full sample		High-Tech		Low-Tech

	Quantity	Percentage	Quantity	Percentage	Quantity	Percentage
Initiation	69	5.61%	17	5.28%	52	5.72%
Development	199	16.17%	60	18.63%	139	15.29%
Maintenance	392	31.84%	107	33.23%	285	31.35%
Evaluation	178	14.46%	56	17.39%	122	13.42%
– Continuation	317	25.75%	69	21.43%	248	27.28%
– Dormancy	42	3.41%	6	1.86%	36	3.96%
– Termination	16	1.30%	3	0.93%	13	1.43%
Reactivation	18	1.46%	4	1.24%	14	1.54%
In total	1231	100.00%	322	100.00%	909	100.0%

Measurement of coopetition characteristics adopted from Klimas et al_ (2025)

Coopetition characteristics	Cronbach’s α
Strategic characteristics
Paradoxicality – 7 items inspired by: Crick & Crick, 2019; Raza-Ullah, 2020; Ricciardi et al., 2022.	0.8048
Dynamics – 7 items inspired by: Osarenkhoe, 2010; Czakon et al., 2014; Bouncken et al., 2018; Kwon et al., 2020; Jakobsen, 2020; Amata et al., 2021.	0.885
Relational characteristics
Asymmetry – 6 items inspired by: Osarenkhoe, 2010; Pellegrin-Boucher et al., 2013; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Dorn et al., 2016; Lechner et al., 2016; Monticelli et al., 2018; Yoo et al., 2019; Jakobsen, 2020; Kwon et al., 2020; Munten et al., 2021; Meena et al., 2022; Yoo et al., 2022.	0.8418
Complexity – 5 items inspired by: Geurts et al., 2022	0.8669
Intensity – 6 items inspired by: Petter et al., 2014; Raza-Ullah & Kostis, 2020.	0.8654
Mutual dependence – 5 items inspired by: Petter et al., 2014; Jakobsen, 2020; Garri, 2021; Muthusamy & Dass, 2021.	0.7801
Strength – 8 items inspired by: Shi et al., 2009; Dorn et al., 2016; Klimas et al., 2021	0.8796
Tensions – 5 items inspired by: Bouncken et al., 2017; Bouncken et al., 2018; Jakobsen, 2020; Lascaux, 2020; Raza-Ullah, 2020	0.8828
Behavioral characteristics
Formality – 5 items inspired by Liu et al., 2010; Bouncken et al., 2020; Amata et al., 2022; Telg et al., 2023	0.9213
Competition intensity – 6 items inspired by: Bouncken & Friedrich, 2012; Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Chen et al., 2020; Bouncken et al., 2020; Rai et al., 2023	0.8587
Conflict – 6 items inspired by: Sharma et al., 2015; Dorn et al., 2016; Gast et al., 2015; Chai et al., 2020; Jakobsen, 2020	0.9032
Investments – 5 items inspired by: Liu et al., 2015; Petter et al., 2014; Klimas et al., 2023b	0.8650
Trust – 6 items inspired by: Bouncken & Friedrich, 2012; Monticelli et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2018; Bouncken et al., 2020; Chai et al., 2020; Lascaux, 2020; Raza-Ullah & Kostis, 2020	0.8874

Coopetition life cycle (CLC) framework

*Initiation phase*

Initiation: first contact, formal establishment of a relationship, checking mutual compatibility/convergence, considering and establishing common goal. Early development: a high, although declining rapidly, level of uncertainty and distance, a low, but increasing dynamically level of trust, commitment, mutual adaptation, significant, valuable and fast changes in exchange of resources.
*Development phase*

The first experience of coopetition- initiation of operational-level activities; systematic and gradual strengthening of coopetition through recognition of partner’s competencies; mutual planning of activities; setting priorities and formalizing coopetition details; regular contacts and socialization (enrichment of inter-organizational relationships with interpersonal ones resulting from frequent communication and operational contacts); relatively low level of engagement in partner and shared business affairs but systematic and quite significant increase of commitment and investments. Development of personal relationships and mutual trust.
*Maintenance phase*

Stabilization of partners’ commitment in the relationship; management and ongoing operational shaping of coopetition; systematically pursuing the objectives set by joint agreement, negotiation and self-control; slowing down further mutual adjustments of coopetitors through agreements and management mechanisms; continuing mutual investments in the relationship but at a stable level.
*Evaluation phase*

Verification of coopetition and its efficiency; assessment of experiences gained through cooperation with a competitor; evaluation of costs and benefits arising from staying in the relationship and terminating ties with resources.
*Continuation phase*	*Dormancy phase*	*Termination phase*

The agreement is continued, renewed, or a new cooperation agreement is signed (targeting new shared goals). The implementation of additional joint initiatives ensues; Maintaining commitment to the relationship at the same or higher level; Sustaining or increasing the transfer of resources between partners.	Stagnation of coopetition or the formal agreement is dissolved, but certain bonds, interactions, ties, exchanges are exploited or maintained. There is mutual communication (or even insignificant flows of other resources) as partners recognize opportunities or options for future coopetition.	The agreement is terminated, resulting in the cessation of flows of any resources, including formal (and perhaps informal) communication. Partners do not see any need for further cooperation, therefore no bonds, interactions, ties, or exchanges are exploited or even silently maintained.
*Reactivation phase*

The relationship is re-born as partners re-engage in the execution of assigned operational actions, and thus exchanges of resources appear again. Partners re-start coopetition as prior obstacles have disappeared so the resource re-starts to flow.

Coopetition characteristics across the phases of coopetition life cycle (CLC)

Coopetition characteristics	Strategic characteristics		Relational characteristics						Behavioral characteristics

Phase of coopetition life cycle (CLC)	Dynamics	Paradoxicality	Asymmetry	Intensity	Complexity	Mutual dependence	Strength	Tensions	Competition intensity	Conflict	Formality	Investments	Trust
Full sample N=1231

Initiation	4.00	4.71	4.00	4.42	4.20	4.20	4.75	3.40	4.50	3.83	4.60	4.60	5.00
Development	4.14	5.00	4.00	4.67	4.40	4.60	4.88	3.60	4.67	4.33	5.00	4.80	5.00
Maintenance	4.14	4.86	4.00	4.50	4.60	4.80	5.00	3.60	4.50	4.67	5.00	4.60	5.17
Evaluation	4.29	5.00	3.83	4.50	4.80	4.60	5.00	3.60	4.50	4.50	5.00	4.50	5.00
– Continuation	4.43	4.71	4.00	4.50	4.60	4.60	4.88	3.40	4.50	4.00	5.00	4.40	5.00
– Dormancy	4.64	4.29	3.83	4.21	4.00	4.20	4.25	3.00	4.33	4.00	4.20	4.20	4.50
– Termination	4.43	4.14	4.08	4.13	4.20	4.00	4.00	3.50	4.00	3.08	5.00	4.30	4.00
Reactivation	4.36	4.50	3.91	4.50	4.30	4.50	4.81	3.10	4.67	3.92	5.00	4.40	4.83
High-Tech N = 322

Initiation	4.14	4.86	3.50	4.50	4.20	4.80	4.75	3.00	4.33	3.83	5.00	4.80	5.00
Development	4.57	5.07	3.83	4.75	4.80	5.00	5.00	3.60	4.83	4.33	5.30	5.00	5.17
Maintenance	4.43	5.00	3.83	4.67	4.80	4.80	5.00	3.80	4.50	4.67	5.20	4.80	5.00
Evaluation	4.29	5.00	3.83	4.42	4.60	4.40	4.88	3.60	4.33	4.67	5.10	4.20	5.00
– Continuation	4.43	4.86	3.83	4.58	4.60	4.60	4.88	3.40	4.67	4.00	5.00	4.40	5.00
– Dormancy	4.43	3.93	3.75	4.25	3.80	4.10	4.13	3.30	4.58	3.83	3.90	4.10	4.50
– Termination	4.43	4.00	4.17	4.17	4.20	3.80	4.25	3.60	4.00	2.83	5.20	4.60	4.00
Reactivation	4.29	4.07	4.08	4.25	4.30	4.50	4.44	3.20	4.58	3.92	4.80	3.80	4.42
Low-Tech N = 909

Initiation	4.00	4.50	4.17	4.33	4.30	4.20	4.69	3.60	4.50	3.92	4.60	4.40	5.00
Development	4.00	4.71	4.17	4.58	4.40	4.60	4.63	3.60	4.50	4.33	4.80	4.60	5.00
Maintenance	4.00	4.86	4.00	4.42	4.60	4.80	5.00	3.60	4.50	4.67	5.00	4.60	5.17
Evaluation	4.14	5.00	3.83	4.63	4.80	4.80	5.00	3.40	4.50	4.33	5.00	4.60	5.00
– Continuation	4.29	4.71	4.00	4.42	4.50	4.60	5.00	3.60	4.50	4.00	4.80	4.40	5.00
– Dormancy	4.64	4.29	3.83	4.21	4.10	4.20	4.25	3.00	4.33	4.00	4.20	4.30	4.50
– Termination	4.43	4.14	4.00	3.83	4.20	4.00	3.88	3.40	4.00	3.17	5.00	4.20	4.00
Reactivation	4.43	4.64	3.83	4.58	4.60	4.50	4.94	3.10	4.67	3.92	5.00	4.70	5.00

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcm-2025-0005 | Journal eISSN: 2449-8939 | Journal ISSN: 2449-8920

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 50 - 71

Published on: Sep 7, 2025

Published by: Jagiellonian University

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 times per year

Keywords:

coopetition process,

coopetition development,

coopetition evolution,

coopetition characteristics,

high-tech,

low-tech

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Business management,

Management, organization, corporate governance,

Business management, other,

Industries,

Non profit organizations (NPO), foundations, charities, associations,

Public sector, public private partnerships, public administration

© 2025 Patrycja Klimas, Michał Nadolny, Sylwia Stańczyk, Karina Sachpazidu, published by Jagiellonian University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 61 (2025): Issue 1 (March 2025)Next article