Network Coopetition: An Empirical Analysis with

Transkript

Network Coopetition: An Empirical Analysis with Multiple Case
Approach
By
Duygu Aladag
Dissertation Presented for the Degree of
MSc in INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS and EMERGING MARKETS
2012/2013
ÖZET
Ortaklaşa rekabet (coopetition), rakip firmaların stratejik amaçları doğrultusunda işbirliği
içerisinde olmaları durumudur. Bu stratejik ilişki, konseptin ortaya atılmasından çok daha önce
var olmasına rağmen, küresel rekabetin yüksek olduğu günümüzde ayrı bir önem kazanmıştır.
Yükselen küresel rekabet, stabil olmayan ekonomik ve çevresel koşullar, kısıtlı kaynaklar ve
yüksek maliyetleri göz önünde bulunduran rakip firmalar; ortaklaşa rekabet ile kaynak ve
kapasitelerini bir araya getirerek üretim ve inovasyonda maliyet ve riskleri paylaşmaktadırlar.
İş dünyasında ve akademik çevrelerce gösterilen ilgiye rağmen ortaklaşa rekabet konsepti halen
yeterince araştırılmamış ve tüm yönleriyle keşfedilmemiştir. Konseptin karakteristik özellikleri
ve kapsadığı alanlar açısından farklı görüşler mevcut olması nedeniyle; herkes tarafından kabul
edilmiş kesin bir tanımı dahi mevcut değildir.
Bu çalışma, ortaklaşa rekabet literatürüne teorik ve ampirik açıdan katkı sağlamayı
amaçlamaktadır.
Teorik katkı olarak; ortaklaşa rekabet üzerine var olan literatür analizi ardından konseptin
doğası ve avantajları üzerine teorik bir çerçeve oluşturulmuş; ve konsept için bir tanım
yapılmıştır.
Bu çalışmanın ampirik katkısı ise; ortaklaşa rekabetin; özellikle ağ ortaklaşa rekabetinin
(network coopetition) doğasının ve avantajlarının sergilendiği iki adet vaka analizi olmuştur. İlk
vaka analizinde ortaklaşa rekabet ağlarının inovasyon yaratımına katkısının örneği olan
EUREKA projeleri ele alınmıştır. Bu vaka analizi ayni zamanda KOBİ’lerin ve büyük
işletmelerin ortaklaşa rekabete olan yaklaşımlarındaki farklılıkları da gözlemleme imkânı
sunmuştur.
İkinci vaka ise, ortaklaşa rekabetin önemli bir karakteristik olduğu küresel havayolu endüstrisini
mercek altına almıştır. Bu vakada Türk Hava Yolları’nın Star Alliance’a katilim süreci ve
Alliance’a katilimin THY’ye olan katkılarının incelenmesi, ortaklaşa rekabetin doğası ve
avantajlarına dair zengin bir kaynak olmuştur.
Ortaklaşa rekabetin doğası ve avantajları hakkındaki bulguların yanı sıra, bu çalışmanın en
önemli katkılarından biri ağ ortaklaşa rekabetinde düzenleyici/koordine edici bir kuruluşun
öneminin vurgulanması olmuştur. Önceki akademik çalışmalarda değinilmeyen bu hususta,
EUREKA ve Star Alliance önemli örnekler olmuşlardır.
ABSTRACT
Coopetition concept refers to a strategic relationship among competitor firms, where they
compete and cooperate simultaneously. Coopetition promises significant advantages for firms in
the era of intensive global competition. Although coopetitive relationships existed long before
the term was coined, the conditions of contemporary business world make increasing number of
firms adopt coopetitive strategies in order to share costs, risks, or lead innovations, by
collectively deploying their resource and capabilities with competitors.
In spite of the increased interest on the topic, coopetition remains as an under-researched area. It
even does not have a commonly accepted definition, regarding the variety of approaches on its
defining characteristics and borders.
This study provides both theoretical and empirical contributions to the concept of coopetition.
Theoretically, after the analysis of the literature on coopetition, it provides a definition of
coopetition, as ‘a strategic relationship where firms from the same industry compete and
cooperate simultaneously within a dynamic structure, in order to benefit from the synergies and
efficiencies created through the common deployment of resource and capabilities in various
areas and stages of their businesses’. Furthermore, it provides a framework on nature and
advantages of coopetition.
Empirically, two case studies contribute to the understanding on the nature and advantages of
coopetition, specifically on coopetitive networks. The first case study is about EUREKA
projects, enabling us observing network coopetition in terms of R&D and innovation creation,
which is considered to be of the most substantial areas to coopete. Moreover, the case provides
a comparison between SMEs and large companies in terms of their approach towards
coopetition.
The second case puts global airline industry under scope, in which network coopetition is an
industry-defining characteristic. The case specifically analyses the process of Turkish Airlines
to join Star Alliance, and the effects of the alliance membership to the company, which became
a rich resource to exemplify the advantages and setbacks of network coopetition in airline
industry.
Additional to the insights on nature and advantages of coopetition, one of the most remarkable
findings of this study have been demonstrating the key role of the coordinating organisations on
network coopetition (EUREKA in first case study and Star Alliance at the second), which is an
issue
have
not
addressed
by
previous
research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincerest thanks
To my supervisor Dr. Tanja Kontinen, for your support, motivation, and guidance
throughout writing my dissertation.
To all interviewees, for your time and invaluable information you generously provided.
To European Union’s Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme, for providing me the
opportunity of having an MSc degree from one of the world’s most prestigious
universities.
To my dearest friends, you became my second family in Edinburgh and made this year
an unforgettable journey.
To Martin, for making the world smaller, for sharing this life changing experience with
me, and for all your love and support.
Finally, the biggest thanks to my family, Nedime and Mehmet. You taught me the two
greatest things in this life: love, and constantly fighting for my dreams. I am proud of
being your daughter.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Competition, Collaboration and Coopetition ................................................................ 4
2.1.1. Components of coopetition: Competition and Collaboration ............................... 4
2.2. Nature of coopetition: Paradoxical, Multidimensional and Multifaceted................... 5
2.3. Increased interest on topic............................................................................................... 6
2.4. Lack of definition ............................................................................................................. 6
2.5. Defining Coopetition ........................................................................................................ 7
2.5.1. Who actually coopetes?............................................................................................. 7
2.5.2. The timing of competition and cooperation ............................................................ 8
2.5.3. Are strategic alliance and coopetition same things? .............................................. 9
2.6. Definition of Coopetition ............................................................................................... 10
2.7. Theoretical Background of Coopetition ....................................................................... 10
2.7.1. Game Theory ........................................................................................................... 10
2.7.2. Resource Based View .............................................................................................. 11
2.7.3. Knowledge Based View ........................................................................................... 11
2.7.4. Network Economy ................................................................................................... 11
2.8. Types of coopetition ....................................................................................................... 13
2.8.1. Network Coopetition ............................................................................................... 13
2.9. Advantages of coopetition.............................................................................................. 15
2.9.1. Cost Related Advantages ........................................................................................ 16
2.9.2. Market Standardization and Lobbying................................................................. 16
2.9.3. Advantages on Learning and Innovation .............................................................. 16
2.10. Setbacks about Coopetition: Opportunism Threat and Trust Issue ....................... 18
2.11. The importance of the coordinating organisation in Network Coopetition ............ 19
2.12. Comparing SMEs and large companies in terms of coopetition .............................. 20
3.
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 22
3.1. Case Study Design .......................................................................................................... 22
3.1.2.
Interviews ........................................................................................................... 24
3.1.3. Case One: EUREKA ................................................................................................. 2
3.1.4. Case Two: Turkish Airlines ..................................................................................... 2
3.2. The analysis of interviews ................................................................................................ 2
3.3. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 4
4.
CASE 1: EUREKA.............................................................................................................. 5
Network Coopetition in Eureka ................................................................................. 8
4.1
4.1.1
Eurostars Programme: SMEs in Network Coopetition ................................... 8
4.1.2
Eureka Clusters ................................................................................................... 9
Analysis of the Programmes ..................................................................................... 12
4.2
4.2.1
Advantages of Eurostars and the Clusters ...................................................... 12
4.2.2
Differences between SMEs and large companies ........................................... 19
CASE2: AIRLINE NETWORK COOPETITION - TURKISH AIRLINES IN STAR
ALLIANCE................................................................................................................................ 21
5.1. Global Airline Industry: A Snapshot ........................................................................... 22
5.2.
Alliances: Major Actors of the Industry ................................................................. 22
5.2.1.
5.2.
The Factors Shifting Industry towards Alliances ........................................... 26
Star Alliance .............................................................................................................. 26
5.2.1.
Advantages of Star Alliance ............................................................................. 27
5.2.2.
Joining Star Alliance: How to Become a Member ......................................... 33
5.4. Turkish Airlines ............................................................................................................. 35
5.4.1. About the Company ................................................................................................ 35
5.5. Turkish Airlines and Star Alliance ............................................................................... 37
5.5.1. Deciding to Join Star Alliance: Decision And Integration Processes ................. 38
5.5.2. Star Alliance-Turkish Airlines Relationships ....................................................... 38
5.5.3. Benefits for Turkish Airlines: Prestige and Increased Brand Awareness ......... 38
5.5.4. Disadvantages of Star Alliance............................................................................... 39
5.6. Findings on Nature of Coopetition n Airline Industry ............................................... 40
5.6.1. Do All Participants Benefit Equally? .................................................................... 40
5.6.2. Increased Level of Competition ............................................................................. 40
5.6.3. Future of Coopetition in Airline Industry............................................................. 41
5.7. Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 41
6. Cross Case Analysis .............................................................................................................. 42
6.1. Similarities ...................................................................................................................... 42
6.1.1. On Advantages of Coopetition ............................................................................... 42
6.2 Differences ................................................................................................................... 43
7. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 45
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................................... 47
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX 1- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview With Serhat Sari- Turkish Airlines Scotland
General Manager ......................................................................................................................... 58
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW-IN TURKISH .............................................................................. 58
TRANSLATION to ENGLISH............................................................................................... 62
APPENDIX 2- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview with Fatma Basaran Çiçek, Turkish Airlines
Edinburgh-Regional Commercial Manager- Turkish Airlines Edinburgh Directorate ............... 67
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW-IN TURKISH .............................................................................. 67
APENDIX 3- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview with Onur Alpan-Turkish Airlines, Internatonal
Relations and Agreements Manager; and Banu Ekerim- Turkish Airlines –International
Alliances Specialist ..................................................................................................................... 72
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW: IN TURKISH .............................................................................. 72
APPENDIX 4- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview with Marej Jazak, Impact & Portfolio Analyst ar
EUREKA Secretariat and Piotr Pogorzelski, officer at EUREKA Secretariat , and Lecturer at
European Institute of Public Administration............................................................................... 93
APPENDIX 5- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview With Emre Yurttagul, EUREKA TurkeyInternational Project Coordinator ................................................................................................ 97
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW: IN TURKISH .............................................................................. 97
TRANSLATION to ENGLISH............................................................................................. 100
APPENDIX 7- EUREKA ......................................................................................................... 104
Historcal Evolution of EUREKA .......................................................................................... 104
EUREKA MEMBER COUNTRIES ..................................................................................... 106
EUREKA UMBRELLAS ..................................................................................................... 108
SAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT ....................................................................... 109
EUROSTARS CONSORTIUM SKELETON ...................................................................... 113
A Sample Project Management Structure, from Celtic Plus ................................................. 117
Eurostars Programme Funding excellence in innovation Eurostars Application Assessment
Guidelines, 2012 ................................................................................................................... 118
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Matrix of strategic alliance and coopetition ......................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Theories and views related coopetition................................................................................................ 12
Table 3: Types of coopetition ............................................................................................................................ 13
Table 4: Table of Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 1
Table 5: Thematic Approach on Interviews ......................................................................................................... 3
Table 6: Ethical Issues and the reflections of this study ...................................................................................... 4
Table 7: SME definition by the European Union ................................................................................................. 7
Table 8: EUREKA Clusters ............................................................................................................................... 10
Table 9: Members of the three airline alliances ................................................................................................. 25
Table 10: Basic facts on Star Alliance ............................................................................................................... 27
Table 11:Ranking of European airlines.............................................................................................................. 37
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Positioning coopetition between pure competition and pure collaboration .......................................... 4
Figure 2: Porter’s 5 forces and Nalebuff and Brandenburger’s 6th force, complementors. ................................ 8
Figure 3: Coopetitive networks competing each other....................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Advantages of coopetition .................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 5: Knowledge Creation Cycle on Coopetition, adapted from Ritala et al. (2009) .................................. 17
Figure 6: Triangulation of the Research............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 7:Eureka Projects as Dyadic and Network Coopetition Formations ........................................................ 6
Figure 8: Distribution of Organizations Participating in EUREKA Projects ...................................................... 7
Figure 9: Participants in Eurostars Projects ......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 10: Types of Eurostars Consortiums ......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 11: Eurostars Project Approval Process ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 12:Eureka Clusters and forms of coopetition ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 13:The process of cluster projects .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 14: Advantages of coopetition mentioned at the literature review ......................................................... 13
Figure 15: Consortium Requirements for Successful Coopetition..................................................................... 15
Figure 16: EUREKA Label ................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 17:Direction of the Case ......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 18: Market Value of Global Airline Industry ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 19: Competition in Global Airline Industry............................................................................................ 23
Figure 20: A snapshot on the market share of alliances ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 21:Advantages of Coopetition in Airline Industry ................................................................................. 28
Figure 22 Global Network of Star Alliance ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 23: Membership Process for Star Alliance ............................................................................................. 34
Figure 24: Turkish Airlines Organisational Structure ........................................................................................ 35
Figure 25: Facts and Figures about Turkish Airlines ......................................................................................... 35
Figure 26: Increased competition amongst competitors .................................................................................... 40
Figure 27:Advantages of coopetition in both cases ........................................................................................... 42
1. INTRODUCTION
Coopetition is a strategic relationship, where competitors are involved in
cooperation, in order to realize their specific goals (Ritala and Wegmann, 2011).
Although the cooperative relationships of competitors existed before the term was
coined, the concept gained popularity after Brandenburger and Nalebuff’s famous
book Coopetition (1996).
Coopetition enables firms to combine the advantages of competitive and cooperative
strategies. However, coopetition is a dynamic and paradoxical nature (Guardo and
Galvagno, 2007), regarding the contradicting natures of cooperation and competition.
This is the main factor making coopetition different from any other kind of
collaborative relationship (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009), (Bengtsson on
and Kock, 2000).
In the era of global competition, where interdependence, constant change, and
instability are defining features of the contemporary business world; increasing
number of firms from various industries adopt coopetitive strategies, in order to
share costs and
risks, or lead innovations by deploying their resources and
capabilities to complement each other.
In spite of the increased interest on coopetition from firms as a strategic tool, and
from academic studies as a research subject, there is still no consensus on its
definition. Indeed, the lack of a commonly accepted definition prevents building a
strong conceptual and theoretical framework (Galvagno and Garraffo, 2007). In spite
of many studies claiming the importance of the subject as a strategic tool, literature
on coopetition still carries many gaps.
This study provides theoretical and empirical contributions on coopetition. First,
after a discussion of the contested features leading the conflict on definition of the
concept, it provides a definition in coopetition. Moreover, it analyses the previous
literature in order to provide a framework on the nature and advantages of
coopetition. Indeed, that part provides a basis for the empirical contributions of the
study, as it is not possible to carry an exploratory inquiry towards a concept without
clearly defining what it actually is.
1
Following the theoretical part, the empirical part of the study analyses coopetition in
network level, in order to gain more insights about the nature of coopetition within a
more dynamic environment. With that motivation, two case studies were conducted,
by searching answers for the following questions:
1. How is the nature of coopetition and what are the advantages of coopetitive
strategy?
2. What is the role and importance of a coordinating organisation in network
coopetition?
3. What are differences between SMEs and large companies in terms of their
approach towards coopetition?
The first case study on EUREKA projects enables us observing network coopetition
in terms of R&D and innovation projects, which is considered to be one of the most
substantial areas to coopete. Moreover, the case provides a comparison between
SMEs and large companies, and exposes the importance of EUREKA as a
coordinating organisation within network coopetition.
The second case analyses network coopetition within global airline industry, where
coopetition is an industry-defining characteristic. The case tackles the process of
Turkish Airlines to join Star Alliance, and the contributions of the alliance to the
company; which demonstrated the advantages and setbacks of coopetition in airline
industry. The case also demonstrates the key role of Star Alliance as a coordinating
organisation of the biggest coopetitive network of the industry.
2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Coopetition is, with its very basic description, competing and collaborating
simultaneously. (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000), (Levy et al., 2003). Within a
coopetitive relationship, firms closely collaborate and intensively compete at the
same time (Breznitz, 2007), in order to realize their specific goals (Ritala and
Wegmann, 2011). Firms involved in a coopetitive relationship collaborate to create
value, and compete to get the biggest share of the value created (Nalebuff, and
Brandenburger, 1996).
Coopetition concept gained popularity after Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1996)
carried the concept into a more popular stage with their famous book Coopetition.
Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1996) and many other studies (Dagnino and Padula,
2002), (Luo, 2007) claimed that the word ‘coopetition’ was first used by Raymond
Noorda, CEO of Novell Company, describing Novell’s business strategy. However,
the word was ‘coined’ far before than Noorda did. In 1913, P.T Cherington put the
words of an oyster manufacturer Kirk P. Pickett in his book, who used the word
coopetition for the first time in the literature, while describing the relationship
between the oyster dealers: “You are only one of several dealers selling our oysters
in your city. But you are not in competition with one another. You are co-operating
with one another to develop more business for each of you. You are in co-opetition,
not in competition” (Cherington, 1913).
Indeed, coopetitive relationships existed before the term gained popularity. Hamel et
al. (1989), for instance, claimed that collaborating with competitors would be a great
source of competitive advantage. However, coopetitive formations became
increasingly popular during the last two decades. Globalisation of the business world
made all economic actors interdependent on each other, even competitors (Luo,
2004). Competitors face similar challenges in the market (Chen, 1996), where
managing those challenges solely with their own resources and capabilities would
not be possible; even if it were, that might not be the most efficient way. The
resource-asymmetries of competitors stimulate coopetition, where coopetitors can
deploy their resources to complete each other effectively.
As Nalebuff and
Brandenburger (1996) remark, coopetition is “an open-minded position that also
3
embraces complementary elements of competitors.” In a world where firms face
serious challenges of global competition, more and more firms realise the potential of
advantages from cooperating with competitors, regarding their similarities in terms
of resource, capability and challenges Elmuti et al., 2012), (Liedtka, 1996).
2.1. Competition, Collaboration and Coopetition
Coopetition is somewhere at the continuum between the pure competition and pure
collaboration, (Galvagno and Garraffo, 2007), (Eriksson, 2008), which promises
greater benefits than discrete competitive or collaborative strategies (Le Roy and
Guillotreau, 2010), by providing firms the advantages of both competition and
collaboration. (Yami et al., 2010). The involvement of competitive characteristics
into a collaborative relationship makes collaboration of competitors much different
than collaboration of non-competitors (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009),
(Bengsston and Kock, 2000). For this reason, it is essential to avoid approaching
coopetition as a simple collaborative relationship. Indeed, coopetition is perceived as
a new kind of interdependence for value creation (Dagnino and Padula, 2002), or a
new type of strategic relationship (Akdogan and Cingoz, 2012), (Bouncken and
Fredrich, 2012).
Figure 1: Positioning coopetition between pure competition and pure collaboration
COOPETITION
PURE
COMPETITION
PURE
COOPERATION
Resource: Galvagno and Garraffo, 2007
2.1.1. Components of coopetition: Competition and Collaboration
In order to obtain a better understanding towards coopetition, it is important to bring
together the definitions and main characteristics of the two components of the
concept.
2.1.1.1. Competition
4
Competition: The activity of condition of striving to gain or win something by
defeating or establishing superiority over others. -Oxford Dictionary of English
As its definition clearly demonstrates, in a competitive relationship, involving parts
endeavour to defeat each other to obtain superiority over the rest. “Rivalry occurs
because one or more competitors either feels the pressure or sees the opportunity to
improve position” (Porter, 1980). The competitive way of value creation is a zerosum game, where one part’s gain becomes the other part’s loss. In competition
strategy, the value creation takes place within the firm, whereas the interaction with
other competitors take place in the distribution of the value created (Porter, 1980).
2.1.1.2. Cooperation
Cooperation: The action or process of working together to the same end. -Oxford
Dictionary of English
Following the rise of competition strategy, cooperation emerged as an alternative,
regarding the interdependence of firms originated from their converging interests
(Simoni and Caiazza, 2012). In a cooperative relationship, involving parts deploy
their resources, capabilities, and efforts for reaching a common goal. It is a positivesum game in a formation of strategic interdependence (Dagnino and Padula, 2002).
Cooperative perspective is based on the logic that firms can get superior position by
developing common interests (Gulati 1998), (Abdallah and Wadhwa, 2009).
2.2. Nature of coopetition: Paradoxical, Multidimensional and Multifaceted
Being simultaneous competition and collaboration, coopetition possess different
characteristics than cooperation of non-competitors. Regarding the contradicting
natures of competition and collaboration, sleeping with the enemy (Coy, 2006) has a
paradoxical nature (Guardo and Galvagno, 2007), (Schmlele and Sofka, 2007),
(Bengtsson and Kock, 2000).
The combination of those contradicting concepts make coopetition very dynamic and
unstable, as it is shaped by constant action and reaction of the interdependent firms
involved (Castaldo and Dagnino 2009). Regarding its nature summarized above,
coopetition is a win-win game, however the results are changeable (Dagnino, 2009)
and ambiguous (Dagnino and Padula, 2002), dependent on the actions of the
involving parts.
5
Moreover, the number of the firms involved, the industry they operate in, which part
of their business they coopete and and many internal/external factors make it
impossible to generalize about whether competition or cooperation weights heavier
in a coopetitive relationship. As Luo (2005) states, these contradicting elements are
dynamic, the dominance of one on another constantly change regarding the changes
in the external environment and the firm’s needs. It can be competition or
cooperation dominated, or balanced (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000).
To conclude, coopetition is a multidimensional and multifaceted concept, carrying
structural variability dependent on many factors and characteristics of the involving
parts, which makes it difficult to provide generalizations about significant
characteristics of the relationship, such as whether competition or collaboration
weights heavier.
2.3. Increased interest on topic
Increased and intensified global competition and extremely fast changing
environment make increasing number of
firms from various industries form
coopetitive relationships, regardless of the degree of their rivalry. Markets do not
consist of atomised and isolated actors anymore, but interactive systems like living
organisms where actors continuously interact with each other to survive and prosper
(Dagnino and Padula, 2002). Interfirm connections has become so crucial that, the
competitive advantage of the firm gets dependent on its ability of building
competitive and cooperative relationships better than anyone within the market
(Guardo and Galvagno, 2007).
In such conditions, it is not surprising that increasing number of firms choose
coopetition as a strategic tool and that the interest towards coopetition as a research
subject increases (Galvagno and Garaffo 2007), (Dagnino and Padula, 2002), (Lado
et al., 1997), (Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2001).
2.4. Lack of definition
In spite of the increased interest and numerous academic studies on coopetition, there
is still no consensus about its definition. The lack of a commonly accepted definition
also prevents building strong conceptual and theoretical frameworks for coopetition,
e.g. if there is no consensus about who is actually coopeting. As Galvagno and
6
Garraffo (2007) states, the situation prevents coopetition to flourish as a distinctive
research area, where many studies do not go further beyond than “naming, claiming
or evoking it” (Dagnino and Padula, 2002).
First and foremost, coopetition needs a generally accepted definition, and then a
strong conceptual framework defining the borders, nature and issues related. Then
this conceptual framework should be strengthened with in-depth case studies from
various industries.
2.5. Defining Coopetition
This section aims to provide a definition of coopetition, by discussing the most
important dissidences on definition of coopetition: the actors involved in, the period
it covers, and the misuse of strategic alliance as a synonym of coopetition.
2.5.1. Who actually coopetes?
There are two main approaches towards the issue of what type of actors actually
coopete. The first approach has its roots from Nalebuff and Brandenburger’s book
Coopetition (1996). Brandenburger and Nalebuff claim that, Porter’s five forces
model is insufficient and there should be a sixth type of actor within the model:
complementors. Complementors are actors who complement one good or service by
adding value for the common users. For instance, software and hardware products
are complementors to each other; and Nalebuff and Brandenburger claim that not
only competitors but also complementors coopete each other (figure 2). Following
this approach, Afuah (2000) claims that stakeholders are also coopetitors. Bouncken
and Fredrich (2012) also define coopetition as the “relationship with varying degrees
of competition and collaboration that is carried out horizontally between ‘classic’
competitors and vertically between up and downstream partners that collaborate but
also compete about their share of the pie.
7
Figure 2: Porter’s 5 forces and Nalebuff and Brandenburger’s 6th force,
complementors.
suppliers
Complementors
potential
entrants
industry
competitors:
rivalry
among
existing firms
substitutes
buyers
Source: Nalebuff and Brandenburger 1996; Porter, 1980
The second approach, which is also adopted by this study, claims that coopetition is
the simultaneous competition and collaboration, where only competitor firms involve
in (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000). In other words, this approach accepts coopetition as
the collaboration in the horizontal level. Integrating vertical collaborations into the
domains of coopetition concept would mean taking
suppliers, buyers , even
stakeholders as a firm’s competitors; which would lead approaching every type of
relationship among these actors as coopetition, which in turns, would be a logical
mistake contradicting the nature of the concept itself.
2.5.2. The timing of competition and cooperation
Another important dissidence about coopetition is about when actors exactly
compete and cooperate. There are three approaches about the issue:
1)
Competition and cooperation should be simultaneously (Ritala et al, 2009),
(Luo, 2007)
2)
Firms compete in one period of time and cooperate in another ; (Chien and
Peng, 2005)
3)
Firms can compete and collaborate either simultaneously, or sequentially
(Galvagno and Garraffo, 2007) , (Ritala and Wegmann, 2011)
8
This study adopts the first approach, considering the fact that competitor firms do
not surcease their rivalry just because of they are involving in a kind of cooperative
formation in a specific area. Regarding the
global business conjuncture and
intensified multimarket rivalry, it would not be realistic to assume that firms follow a
sequence of competition and collaboration.
2.5.3. Are strategic alliance and coopetition same things?
Another confusion about coopetition is the misuse of strategic alliance and
coopetition, as they were synonym concepts. If the borders of coopetition were kept
such wide to cover suppliers, competitors and customers, it is even possible to argue
that coopetition is no different from strategic alliances.
Coopetition is a collaborative formation, taking place between competitors. A
strategic alliance, on the other hand, is a formation where two or more companies are
involved, in order to reach a common goal (Barney 2011), (Das 2000). The important
point here is, a strategic alliance can take place among any actors: between
competitors, or non-competitors. If a strategic alliance takes place among vertical
actors, such as a strategic alliance between suppliers and producers, that has nothing
to do with coopetition. However, if the strategic alliance takes place between
competitors, then this strategic alliance is a coopetitive alliance, just as many studies
focused on that type of coopetitive-alliances (Khanna et al 1998), (Dussauge et al.,
2000), (Bengston and Kock, 2000),(Gnyawali and Park 2009), (Akdogan and
Cingoz, 2012). Indeed, the majority of strategic alliances take place in the form of
coopetition. In 1998, 15 years from today, Harbison and Pekar claimed that, over 50
percent of the strategic alliances take place between competitors. Regarding the
increased competition and the contemporary conditions in the global economy, it
would not be a wrong estimation to claim that this ratio should have even increased.
9
Table 1: Matrix of strategic alliance and coopetition
COOPETITION
STRATEGIC
ALLIANCE
YES
YES
NO
YES
Competitor+Competitor
Non-competitor+Noncompetitor
2.6. Definition of Coopetition
Regarding the discussion in the previous chapter, the study provides a clear
definition of coopetition: Coopetition is a strategic relationship, where firms from the
same industry compete and cooperate simultaneously within a dynamic structure, in
order to benefit from the synergies and efficiencies created through the common
deployment of resource and capabilities in various areas and stages of their
businesses.
2.7. Theoretical Background of Coopetition
The literature so far has associated coopetition with Game Theory, Knowledge Based
View, Resource Based View, and Network Economy View. Considering all of these
theories help to enlighten different aspects of the nature of coopetition (table 2), this
study adopts a holistic approach in terms of theoretical background, rather than
building concept based solely on one of the views introduced below.
2.7.1. Game Theory
Game theory is “the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation
between intelligent rational decision makers” (Myerson, 1991). Myerson’s definition
clearly illustrates how game theory fits to explain the nature of coopetition, as
coopetition is a continuous interplay of competitors, who become interdependent on
each other. Following Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996), who rooted coopetition
on game theory in their famous book Coopetition, various studies rooted their
coopetition studies on game theory (Herzog 2010), (Devetag, 2009). From the
perspective of game theory, coopetition is a variable-sum game, where firms
10
cooperate for value creation, and compete for getting the most from the value
collectively created (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1995). Ritala and HurmelinnaLaukkanen (2009) claim that firms involve in value creation via cooperation, and
value appropriation in competition while coopeting.
2.7.2. Resource Based View
Resource based view claims that sustainable competitive advantage of the firm can
be achieved through retaining (Barney, 1991), manipulating and deploying (Sirmon
et al., 2007) unique resources (Gnyawali and Park 2009).
Resource based-view helps to explain the importance of sharing and deployment of
resources among competitors within coopetitive formations. When a firm’s own
capabilities are solely not enough to manage all challenges and demands of the
contemporary globalised competition, the access to and successful deployment of
resources gained through coopetition might play vital role for forms to survive and
prosper.
2.7.3. Knowledge Based View
Knowledge based view, having its roots from the resource based view (Curado,
2006), approaches knowledge as the most valuable asset that a firms holds (Dunning,
2000), (Liebeskind, 1996).
“Over the last three centuries, the main source of wealth in market economies has
switched from natural assets (notably land and relatively unskilled labour), through
tangible created assets (notably buildings, machinery and equipment, and finance),
to intangible created assets (notably knowledge and information of all kinds) which
may be embodied in human beings, in organizations, or in physical assets” Dunning
(2000).
Knowledge-based view of the firm elucidates the importance of coopetition in terms
of strengthening the knowledge base through inter-organisational learning, and
leading innovations via coopeting, as will be addressed in more details on
knowledge, learning and innovation related advantages of coopetition.
2.7.4. Network Economy
Network theory is about the importance of the ties that firms create, focusing on the
importance of using network relationships to access and exploit external resources,
11
and using them for the firm’s own benefits. Tomski (2011) claims that, firms are not
isolated forms like atoms; network is the concept best describing the economy of 21st
century. “The existence of a network is an extremely important phenomenon because
just on account of its business units to have access to the resources of another
participant”.
In terms of coopetition, network approach provides understanding on the importance
of getting access to resources outside the firm, and what types of relations serve best
to the purpose Powell et al (1996).
Table 2: Theories and views related coopetition
Theory
Relation with coopetition
GAME THEORY
Coopetition is a variable-sum game,
where firms cooperate to create value
and compete to get the most of the value
created.
RESOURCE BASED VIEW
Firms aim to obtain and deploy valuable
resources to gain competitive advantage ,
via cooperating with their competitors
KNOWLEDGE BASED VIEW
Knowledge is the most valuable asset of
the firm. Competitors can increase their
knowledge-based capabilities via sharing
of
knowledge,
and
creating
new
knowledge via coopetition.
NETWORK ECONOMY
Firms can access to the resources of
competitors within via a coopetitive
network.
12
2.8. Types of coopetition
There are many studies providing different classifications for coopetition, in terms of
the number of the parties involved, the level of integration, and the number of areas
that coopetition takes place (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000), (Gnyawali and Madhavan,
2001), (Dagnino, 2009).
In this study, inspired by (Dagnino and Padula,2002), coopetition will simply be
grouped in two levels: coopetition in dyadic level; which is coopetition arising
among two firms; and coopetition in network level, which occurs with involvement
of more than two firms (table 3).
Table 3: Types of coopetition
Number of firms involved
Two
More than two
Type of coopetition
Dyadic coopetition
Network coopetition
This study focuses on network coopetition, aiming to gain substantial insights on the
nature of coopetition, regarding the dynamic nature where multiple actors involved.
“Companies have created networks of alliances in order to command competitive
advantages that individual companies of traditional two-company alliances cannot”
(Gomes-Casseres, 2000)
2.8.1. Network Coopetition
Network coopetition is a kind of collaborative formation, where more than two
competitor firms involved, aiming to achieve superior advantages by sharing and
collective deployment of resource and capabilities. As in any form of coopetition,
firms involved in network coopetition collectively create value via cooperation, and
compete to get the biggest share from the value created. ”A company in a coopetitive network has to keep its eyes on both competences which create value and
capture it at the same time” (Abdallah and Wadhwa, 2009).
Compared to dyadic coopetition, network coopetition provides access to larger level
of resources from many firms, especially in terms of knowledge and learning (Lado
et al., 1997), (Bernal et al., 2002); getting informed about the developments of the
13
industry, and access to higher level of information about their rivals within the
network (Gulati et al., 2000), (Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2000).
Gulati (1999) claims that, the relationships built within networks catalyse further
partnerships. In other words, the more network resources the firm accesses, the more
coopetitive relationship opportunities rise. Accordingly,
the increased network
coopetition might turn some industries consist of coopetitive networks competing
each other (Garaffo, 2002), (Gomes-Casseres, 1994), (Todeva and Knoke, 2005), as
illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 3: Coopetitive networks competing each other
Coopetition
coopetit
ive
network
3
1
5
coopeitive
network 1
4
6
2
5
3
coopetitiv
e network
2
7
8
Coopetition
14
Coopetiti
2.9. Advantages of coopetition
Being the simultaneous combination of competition and cooperation, coopetition
enables firms to reap advantages of both competitive and cooperative strategies
(Yami et al., 2010). The ultimate result of all these advantages is the increase in
firms’ competitive advantage (Hamel et al., 1989).
Advantages of coopetition touched by existing literature can be categorized under
three groups, as cost related, market related, and learning & innovation related
advantages (figure 4).
Figure 4: Advantages of coopetition
COST RELATED
bargaining
power
market
standardization,
lobbying
economies
of scale
advantages
of
coopetition
knowledge
share
cost
sharing
risk
sharing
increased
innovation
and
learning
15
2.9.1. Cost Related Advantages
As will be exemplified by case studies on section 4 and 5, competitors obtain cost
related advantages from coopetitive strategy, such as cost sharing, economies of
scope and scale on manufacturing or new product development (Luo 2005). This is a
significant advantage especially for SME’s, who has insufficient financial resources
for purchasing of expensive machinery or equipment. (Gomes-Casseres, 1997).
2.9.2. Market Standardization and Lobbying
Regardless of the industry origin, coopetitive networks provide firms to involve in
lobbying activities, in order to raise a common voice on shaping industry standards,
or position against the regulations or interventions set by governments or any related
organisations, in order to maximize the overall benefits of the industry (Luo, 2005),
(Abdallah and Wadhwa, 2009).
Another aspect of market standardization particularly takes place in terms of
innovation. As Tether (2002) claims that, firms are likely to involve in coopetition
for ‘higher level innovations’, in order to create pioneering technologies for that
particular industry. Once an industry-shaping innovation is created, firms have
chance to involve in market standardization process.
Nonetheless, it is also a possible case that two or more coopeting networks to
introduce such innovations, and then compete against each other to make their
innovation the market shaping one. The competition takes place in the form of
endeavour to attract more businesses to adopt their product and services aligned with
the network’s innovation (Gomes-Casseres, 1994).
2.9.3. Advantages on Learning and Innovation
As knowledge based view emphasises, knowledge base of a firm is one of the most
important resources to obtain and endure competitive advantage. Why then firms
consider sharing knowledge with a competitor in a coopetitive relationship? The
answer is, coopetition fosters collective intelligence through knowledge and
information sharing (Osarenkhoe, 2010). Knowledge sharing among competitors
would lead synergies (Levy et al., 2003), (Akdogan and Cingoz, 2012), (Luo, 2005);
which is claimed to be greater than the synergies generated through knowledgesharing cooperative agreements among non-competitors (Ritala and Hurmelinna-
16
Laukkanen, 2009). The reason lying behind that synergy is the similar resources and
perspectives the competing firms have (Dussauge et al., 2000), which would
complement each other to create valuable knowledge and inter-partner learning
(Hamel, 1991). While coopeting, competitors gain access to the valuable resources,
which would stimulate innovations that firms could not achieve alone; or could only
be achieved within a considerably longer period (Von Hippel, 1987).
Coopetition enables access to not only technological knowledge, but to the skills and
other capabilities of the partners (Gnyawali and Park 2009), (Hamel et al., 1989),
such as management and marketing skills (Bigliardi et al., 2011). Access to the
knowledge of competitors foster inter-partner learning either it is a dyadic (Dussage
et al. 1999), or network (Johnsen and Johnsen, 1999) coopetitive relationship
(Bengtsson and Kock, 2000).
Ritala et al. (2009) provides a process model of innovation and knowledge creation
of coopetition, which can be summarised as follows: Once the knowledge is shared
with the coopetitor, the new knowledge is combined with the firm’s tacit knowledge.
The more knowledge obtained and created, the more coopetitive manoeuvres take
place (figure 5).
Figure 5: Knowledge Creation Cycle on Coopetition, adapted from Ritala et al.
(2009)
knowledge
shared with
competitor
new
knowledge
created
internalize
with tacit
knowledge
collective
intelligence
17
In addition to knowledge sharing, coopetition boosts innovation by sharing costs,
capabilities and risks related to innovation process (Schmlele and Sofka, 2007),
(Veryzer, 1998), (Watanabe et al., 2009), (Khanna etal.,1998), (Afuah, 2000).
Coopetition stimulates innovation through transfer and share of tangible and
intangible resources; and combination and exploitation of complementary
capabilities of competitor firms, particularly in knowledge intensive, dynamic, and
complex industries (Carayannis and Alexander, 1999). Moreover, coopetition
enables not only creation but also commercialization of innovation (Bouncken and
Fredrich 2012), (Dagnino and Padula, 2002),
2.10. Setbacks about Coopetition: Opportunism Threat and Trust Issue
Alongside with academic studies emphasising and exemplifying benefits of
coopetition, contradicting studies stressing on the disadvantages of coopetition also
exist (Chin et al 2008), (Gyanwali et al. 2006), (Morris et al 2007). The majority of
the negative concerns about coopetition are based on the threat of opportunism,
claiming the likelihood of rivalry to hamper the firm’s performance in a coopetitive
relationship (Nieto and Santamaria, 2007), (Morris et al., 2007).
The risk of critical knowledge leakage considered as one of the biggest threats,
especially in terms of innovation-related coopetitive relations (Khanna et al., 1998),
(Bayona et al., 2001), (Nieto and Santamaria, 2007). Moreover, Amaldoss et al.
(2000) argued that the contradicting natures of competitors and threat of exploitation
make coopetition affect innovation and technological development negatively.
Another concern about coopetition is, regarding the difference in the learning paces
and the targets of the involving firms (Dagnino and Padula, 2002), (Hamel, 1991),
(Inkpen, 2000), the risk of the firm who has gained the targeted outcomes from the
formation would leave before the other firm(s) set their expectations from the
coopetitive formation.
Trust is accepted as one of the most important factors for a coopetitive relationship to
be successful (Akdogan and Cingoz, 2012), (Hamel, 1991), (Castaldo and Dagnino,
2009), (Devetag, 2009). Once trust is provided, firms would share and deploy their
18
resources into a coopetitive relationship, which would considerably affect the success
and quality of the outcomes of coopetition (Gulati et al., 2000), (Chin et al., 2008).
It is worth mentioning that, in spite of all risks and setbacks, it is possible to have
positive outcomes from coopetition, once proper structures were provided and
necessary actions were taken. Moreover, as (Bouncken and Fredrich 2012) claims,
the positive outcomes of the effect of coopetition, particularly innovation, would
outweigh all possible negative effects.
2.11. The importance of the coordinating organisation in Network
Coopetition
As previous section briefly demonstrates, trust carries utmost importance for success
of coopetitive strategy. Nonetheless, trust should be strengthened with a legal
structure, which would help maximizing the value created and minimizing the threat
of opportunism (Abdallah and Wadhwa, 2009), (Gulati 1995), (Poppo and Todd
Zenger 2002).
In the presence of uncertainty and risk of opportunism, formal governing structure of
a coopetitive network is essential for parties to be motivated towards involving such
formation, and the continuity of the trustworthy environment where firms would
utilize their resources for the collaborative value creation with competitors.
However, the presence of a legal contract can guarantee neither the success nor the
attractiveness of coopetitive formation. Especially in network coopetition, it is very
likely that chaos to occur, regarding the contradicting interests of involving parties.
In such situation, a coordinating mechanism would be essential, in order to prevent
chaos and provide the smooth run of the coopetitive relationships.
Bengtsson and Kock (2000) showed the importance of a network-coordinating
organisation, in the case of Swedish Brewery industry. “In such a case, an
intermediate actor, for example, a collective association (such as the Swedish
brewery association), is needed to coordinate and define how to compete or how to
cooperate with each other. The intermediate actor thereby exhibits a formal logic of
interaction collectively agreed upon.” However, the role and importance of such
intermediate actors, where this study refers as ‘coordinating organisations’ remains
19
as an unaddressed issue in literature. Both case studies of this study exemplify
advantages and importance of such coordinating organisations.
2.12. Comparing SMEs and large companies in terms of coopetition
Another contribution of this study is the comparison it provides between SMEs and
large companies, in terms of their approach towards coopetition. Augmented with
case studies at the following sections, it is claimed that coopetition holds even
greater importance for the SMEs, as coopetition becomes a necessity regarding their
greater scarcities in terms of resource and capabilities.
Compared to large companies, SMEs are more vulnerable to the external changes,
regarding limited financial reserves, organisational capabilities, market presence, and
customer base (Morris et al., 2007) (Levy et al., 2003). “In contrast to large
multinational enterprises, which can simply hire or buy such resources,
entrepreneurial firms must seek resources supplied by external organisations” (Lu et
al., 2010).
As the father of innovation Schumpeter (1942) claims, the survival of a company is
only possible with innovation, and its ability to adopt the changes. Watanabe et al.
(2009) also introduces the term being ‘technopreneurial’, claiming its importance in
the era of mega competition. Regarding the weaknesses of SMEs mentioned above, it
is possible to say that R&D is the most crucial area to coopete for SMEs. Arrans and
Arroyable (2008) and Tether (2002) also claim that coopetition is the most beneficial
in the high-tech areas. However, SMEs’ resources and capabilities would not be
solely enough to be continuously adaptive and innovative (Akdogan and Cingoz,
2012). Indeed, SMEs have to race against time, in order to create innovation and
recover their investments in short period of time, so that they could gain superior
performance against their large and small-sized competitors (Narula and Hagedorn,
1999). Furthermore, innovation and R&D is an ambiguous process, as not any
research guarantees to lead to an innovative discovery (Gnyawali and Park 2009). It
is a likely case for a firm to invest big amount of money, spend years on a research,
and getting no fruitful results in the end. For a large company, such case would be a
significant financial loss. However, it might be the collapse of an SME, regarding its
20
scarce resources. All those reasons lead the conclusion that coopetition would be
essential for survival of SMEs (Merrifield, 2007).
Compared to dyadic coopetition, network coopetition would particularly be more
fruitful for SMEs, as deployment resources of two SMEs might not be sufficient,
neither. Within a coopetitive network, SMEs would reach scale and scope of
resources.
To summarize the advantages of coopetition for SMEs, they can share high costs,
ambiguity and risks (Gnyawali and Park 2009), (Ritala et al., 2009), and shorten the
innovation process via coopetition (Narula and Hagedorn, 1999). Moreover, they can
reach economies of scale and scope (Gomes-Casseres, 1997), outmatch a stronger
competitor, help entering new markets, and provide access to external resources
(Barnir and Smith 2002).
Another difference that literature detects between SMEs and large companies is that
it is easier for SMEs to adapt coopetitive formations with their flexible structures.
For large companies it is a more challenging task to adopt into a coopetitive
formation, regarding their strict corporate structures and high level of bureaucracy
with formal procedures (Gnyawali and Park 2009).
21
3. METHODOLOGY
As Yin (1994) states, the fit of the research strategy depends on the factors such as
type of research question(s) and whether it is focused on contemporary or historical
phenomena and the control the investigator has over the events. Regarding the
exploratory and descriptive inquiries this study carries on the coopetition concept, it
adopts qualitative research.
In terms of the research design, this study is divided into two main sections. In the
first section of the study, with the motivation of providing theoretical contributions,
previous academic studies were analysed. Subsequently, a clear definition of
coopetition is provided, and a framework on the nature and advantages of coopetition
were introduced. This first section provides a strong basis for the second section of
the study, as it is not possible to explore the nature of a concept without clearly
defining what it actually is and what its defining characteristics are.
In the second section of the study, two case studies provided insights about the nature
of network coopetition, and exemplified its advantages.
In overall, this study seeks for the answers of the following research questions:
1. How is the nature of coopetition and what are the advantages of coopetitive
strategy?
2. What is the role and importance of a coordinating organisation in network
coopetition?
3. What are differences between SMEs and large companies in terms of their
3.1. Case Study Design
A case study is, with the definition of Yin (1994), “an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.” The main
reason of choosing a case study over other methods is that the area is underdeveloped
and has many gaps in the literature, and the boundaries of the concept are not clear.
With the case study approach, it is expected to discover many aspects about the
complex nature of coopetition.
22
This study adopts a multiple case study design, in order to demonstrate coopetition
from a wider perspective, and to assess the importance of coordinating organisations
in network coopetition with two different examples. By analysing primary and
secondary data in a convergent and complementary manner, it is aimed to have
triangulation among all types of data obtained. Triangulation is a rationale of using
multiple types resources (Yin 1994), where it provides verification of the data gained
through qualitative research (Osland, Osland, 2001). As figure 6 summarizes, a
comprehensive research strategy is adopted, where interviews as primary data are
combined with many other secondary resources such as company reports, company
and organisation websites, industry reports, previous interviews and speeches of the
Top Managers. Additional to providing a deeper and wider insight about the concept
and its implications, it also served as the verification tool, as it provides the chance of
measuring how consistent the obtained data with the other data resources is.
Figure 6: Triangulation of the Research
INTERVIEWS FROM
DIFFERENT LEVELS
NEWS, ARTICLES
PUBLISHED REPORTS
WEBSITES
23
3.1.2. Interviews
Interviews are accepted as irreplaceable sources in case studies (Yin 1994). Parkhe
(2004) claims that they are great opportunities to ‘tap into the brain of the people’, in
order to see their motivations and expectations in decision-making processes. In this
study, indeed, it was aimed to tap into the brains of the people who made the
decisions about entering a coopetitive formation, who manage coopetitive
relationships and who design and operate the coopetitive relationships of networks.
Primary data of both cases were obtained through interviews conducted with officers
and managers from different levels. The reason of interviewing people from different
levels has been the endeavour
of approaching the concept from different
perspectives, and correspondingly having deeper insights about the nature of
coopetition. As Welch et al. (2002) mentions, top managers are key people for
gathering information; however, hierarchically lower level people sometimes provide
even more in-depth information (Macdonald and Hellgren, 1999).
In the Turkish Airlines Case, for instance, interviews were conducted with the
General Manager of Alliances, an officer who is responsible for the coordination of
alliance relationships, a regional general manager, and a regional marketing manager.
In addition to interviews conducted directly related with case studies, two additional
interviews were conducted at the preliminary stage of this study, carried out by the
motivation of gaining more insights about coopetition. One formal and one current
representative of the SME Development Agency, the biggest SME-supporting
organisation of Turkey were interviewed about a subsidizing programme that the
agency provides for SMEs, which aims to stimulate coopetition on manufacturing
among SMEs. Highlights of the interviews are mentioned at the very end of this
study, as a suggestion of future research.
Interviews were conducted either face to face, or in the form of a teleconference,
lasting for 30 to 90 minutes. All interviews were recorded with the interviewee’s
permission. In order to provide richer insights for further research, all interviews are
transcribed and provided as appendices (appendix 2 to 6). Indeed, interviews
conducted in Turkish are provided in original language, and translated in English.
24
Moreover, except the representative from the SME Development Agency, all
interviewees allowed their names to be publicly published.
Considering the exploratory and descriptive inquiries that interviews carry, it is
aimed to provide the interviewees flexibility to shape the flow of the interview in a
conversation-like, open-ended structure. However, regarding the limited time
allocated for the interviews (interviewees are busy people), focused type of
interviews were chosen as the best fit. In focused interviews, interviews remain open
ended, however the interview is led by the set of pre-determined questions (Merton
et al., 1990). Indeed, two interview sessions (interviews 3 and 4-table 4), two
participants were interviewed simultaneously. This also provided great opportunity
to observe the conversation/discussion between two participants, and provided
deeper insights.
25
Table 4: Table of Interviews
CASE STUDY
INTERVIEW
NAME
POSITION
Cited As
Serhat Sarı
Turkish Airlines, Scotland
(Sari,2013-Interview
General Manager
1)
NUMBER
TURKISH
Interview 1
AIRLINES
Interview 2
Fatma Basaran
Turkish Airlines Edinburgh-
Çiçek
Regional Commercial
Manager- Turkish Airlines
(Cicek, 2013-Interview 2)
Edinburgh Directorate
Interview 3
Onur Alpan
Turkish Airlines –Manager-
(Alpan, 2013-
International Relations and
Interview 3)
Agreements
Interview 3
Banu Ekerim
Turkish Airlines –
(Ekerim, 2013-
International Alliances
Interview 3)
Specialist
EUREKA
Interview 4
Interview 4
Interview 5
Marej Jazak
Impact & Portfolio Analyst
(Jazak, 2013-
ar EUREKA Secretariat
Interview 4)
Piotr
officer at EUREKA
(Pogorzelski, 2013-
Pogorzelski
Secretariat
Interview 4)
Emre Yurttagül
EUREKA Turkiey-
(Yurttagul, 2013-
International Project
Interview 5)
Coordinator
Background
Interview 6
Bahadır Kaplan
Interviews:
Former SME Development
(Kaplan, 2013-
Agencey Representative
Interview 6)
SME Development Agency
(Anonymous,2013-
Representative
Interview 7)
SME
Development
AgencyTurkey
Interview 7
Anonymous
1
3.1.3. Case One: EUREKA
The EUREKA case carried utmost importance in terms of observing the nature of
network coopetition in R&D, which is one of the most popular areas of coopetition;
and provided the opportunity to compare the SMEs and large companies in terms of
their approach and motivations towards coopetition. Moreover, it had given great
evidence in terms of observing the role of intermediate organisations in the success
of coopetition.
As primary data, 3 participants were interviewed. Two of them are from the
EUREKA headquarter, Brussels-Belgium, and one of them is an experienced project
coordinator from Turkey, which had the 2012-2013 EUREKA Chairmanship with
the main theme of coopetition.
As secondary data, the websites of EUREKA, EUREKA Clusters, and EUREKA’s
Eurostars Programme websites, related reports, published documents and legal
agreement templates have been the main resources.
3.1.4. Case Two: Turkish Airlines
As it was mentioned in the previous sections, the reason of choosing the airline
industry was that it is possible to observe coopetition in many areas among airline
alliance members, where airline alliances are dominant actors in industry and
competing against each other.
In the Turkish Airlines case, the process of joining the biggest airline alliance, its
advantages and disadvantages of being involved in such a coopetitive formation were
analysed. Moreover, the importance and role of Star Alliance as the coordinating and
intermediate organisation had been observed.
3.2. The analysis of interviews
Interviews, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994), are analysed through
the thematic approach where the pre-determined themes are used to channel the
questions, as mentioned in table 5.
2
Table 5: Thematic Approach on Interviews
TURKISH AIRLINES
EUREKA
Company Characteristics
Organisation information
Strategic positioning and the goals of the company
Trust issue in coopetition
Global Airline Industry
Importance of EUREKA in terms of coordinating
coopetition
Motives Behind Joining the alliance
Differences between the coopetition of SMEs and
large companies
Advantages and disadvantages of the alliance
About Eurostars and Clusters
Importance of Star Alliance to coordinate
Advantages ad Challenges of Coopetition
coopetition
Competitor relationships while coopeting
The future of coopetition
The future of coopetition
3
3.3. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study was conducted with the ethical considerations in line with the University
of Edinburgh Ethics Guidence. In table k, ethical attitudes introduced and grouped by
Diener and Crandall (1978) are matched for this study and summarized in table 6.
Table 6: Ethical Issues and the reflections of this study
ETHICAL ISSUES by Diener and Crandall APPROACH of THIS RESEARCH
(1978)
Whether there is harm to participants
Participants had no harm. None of them were
forced to share any information which would
put them into a contradictory position with
their company/organisation, or which would
jeopardize their position within the company
or the organisation.
Whether there is a lack of informed consent
All participants were fully informed about the
purpose of the research, and claimed that the
finalised version of the study can be shared
with them once it’s finished.
Whether there is an invasion of privacy
The interviews were recorded with the
interviewee’s permission.
Interviewee’s names are used with their
permission.
One of the interviewee preferred to be kept
anonymous.
Whether deception is involved
No deception was involved. Only the data
which is permitted to be used is used.
4
4.
CASE 1: EUREKA
EUREKA is an international collaboration platform, focusing on supporting the research,
development, innovation, and commercialization for market-oriented products and
services in short run. The platform was founded in 1985 with the involvement of 18
member countries, and the European Union as the 19th member. The main motivation for
the establishment of such an organisation was to strengthen Europe against the increasing
level of R&D in Asia and North America (Eureka website). The platform so far has
supported more than 4000 R&D projects, and currently has 41 members, including the
European Union (Appendix k).
EUREKA supports research, development and innovation (thereafter R&D&I) projects
by bringing small and medium-sized enterprises (thereafter SMEs), large companies,
universities, and research institutes together. The reason of including EUREKA into this
study is that, it is possible to observe innovation-based network coopetition, where both
large companies and SMEs are involved-separately or together. Coopetition is a central
concept in all EUREKA projects. As such, the main theme of the 2012-2013
Chairmanship of EUREKA had been ’coopetition’. As 2012-2013 EUREKA Chairman
Okan Kara declares, it is aimed to make EUREKA a flexible platform for coopetitive
innovation (Kara, 2012).
It is possible to classify EUREKA’s activities in terms of dyadic and network coopetition
structures. Individual projects are dyadic coopetition platforms, whereas Clusters,
Umbrellas, and Eurostars Projects are coopetitive networks (figure 7). Within individual
projects, two firms come together for an R&D&I project. EUREKA Clusters are
5
coopetitive platforms dominated by large firms, and aimed to lead industry-shaping
innovations and market standardization. Umbrellas are thematic structures, where
companies, research institutions, and related organisations take collective initiatives to
facilitate the creation of more EUREKA R&D&I projects in specific sectors (Appendix
t). Eurostars Programme is particularly dedicated and designed for SMEs, aiming to lead
innovations within a coopetitive network. Within this case, EUREKA Clusters and
Eurostars programme will be analysed and compared; in order to have deeper insights
about network coopetition and its effects on innovation; and to analyse the differences of
coopetition for SMEs and large companies.
Figure 7:Eureka Projects as Dyadic and Network Coopetition Formations
DYADIC
•Individual Projects
NETWORK
•Eurostars Program
•EUREKA Clusters
•EUREKA Umbrellas
EUREKA shows utmost care on the development of the SMEs in Europe, particularly the
R&D intensive ones, aligned with the importance given on SMEs by the European Union
(Eurostars Annual Review, 2011). As the Directorate General Enterprise and Industry of
the European Union declares; more than 99% of the European businesses are small and
medium sized enterprises. Moreover, SMEs provide more than two-third of the jobs in
the private sector and create more than 50% of the value-added business activities within
the EU (EU Directorate General, 2013). That is why; SMEs are considered as the
backbone of the European economy, and are given utmost importance in the EU’s
agenda, so does EUREKA. As illustrated in figure 8, majority of the organizations
participating in EUREKA Projects are SMEs. It is also worth mentioning that this study
adopts the SME definition of the EU, which is summarized at the table 7 below.
6
Table 7: SME definition by the European Union
Company Category
Employees
Turnover
Or- Balance sheet total
Medium-sized
<250
≤ € 50 m
≤ € 43m
Small
<50
≤ €10m
≤ € 10m
Micro
<10
≤ €2m
≤€2m
Resource: EU DG, 2013
Figure 8: Distribution of Organizations Participating in EUREKA Projects
Number of Organizations Participating in Eureka
Projects
29%
2%
SMEs
Large Company
54%
University and research institutes
15%
Other
Resource: EUREKA 2011 Report
Figure 9: Participants in Eurostars Projects
Type of participants in EUROSTARS approved
R&D performing SME
University
11%
Research Institute
Large Company
other
7% 1%
13%
68%
Resource: Eurostars Website
7
Figure 10: Types of Eurostars Consortiums
Types of consortiums in terms of participants
SMEs only
SME + 1 Research Organisation, or University
SME+more than 1 Research Organisation or
University
20%
37%
15%
28%
Resource: EUREKA Website
4.1 Network Coopetition in Eureka
4.1.1 Eurostars Programme: SMEs in Network Coopetition
In the Eurostars Programme, competitor SMEs come together in a coopetitive
formation, by deploying their resource and capabilities and share the risks and
benefits of the R&D&I endeavours. Indeed, those projects are international
coopetitive platforms, as a minimum of two participants have to be from different
participating countries. Additional to SMEs, research organisations, universities,
and large companies also might join the Eurostars Projects (figure 10).
The programme was originally founded with the budget of 400 million Euros, which
of 75% from EUREKA member countries, and the rest is from the 7th Framework
Programme of European Union: the main programme dedicated on the development
of SMEs and Innovation in the EU. As the successor of Eurostars Programme,
Eurostar2, which is the successor of the 7th Framework Program, will be in force by
2014 to 2020. (Eurostars Annual Review, 2011).
The process of being involved into a Eurostars Project evolves as follows: First
candidate SMEs apply with their project idea. After the submission, the project gets
evaluated by EUREKA. In case of the project is approved, national funding bodies
connected to EUREKA fund the project, as the national funding bodies are the
primary fund resource. (figure 11).
8
Figure 11: Eurostars Project Approval Process
SMEs apply
for the
project
submit
application
to EUREKA
project
evaluation
by EUREKA
approved
projects
apply for
national
funding
Since its announcement by the Research Commissioner Janez Potonik in October
2007, Eurostars plays a catalyser position for SME coopetition in R&D&I in an
international platform. It does not only aim to develop but also to commercialize new
ideas, services, and products. (Eurostars Annual Review, 2011). The projects are
required to be market driven, where projects have a maximum of 3 years duration
and are required to be ready to be launched in the market within the 2 years of
project completion (except projects requiring trials such as biomedical or medical
projects) (Eurostars website, 2013).
With its flexible and “close to market” approach, this coopetitive programme is
claimed to be the ideal model for the future of the national/international research
programmes (Eurostars Annual Review, 2011).
4.1.2 Eureka Clusters
EUREKA Clusters are long term strategic formations. They are networks governed
and coordinated by leading large-sized industry firms. Regarding their potential
benefits and outcomes, the primary goal of these clusters is ensuring the leading
position of Europe in technology and innovation (eureka website).
Clusters have two main objectives: Developing generic technologies for the industry,
and setting industry standards in Europe. Information and communication
technologies (ICT), energy, and biotechnology are the most active R&D&I areas of
clusters.
9
At the table 8, you can see a list of EUREKA clusters. As Pogorzelski claims(2013,
Interview 4); Catrene, Celtic Plus and ITEA are the three most active clusters.
Table 8: EUREKA Clusters
CLUSTER NAME
INDUSTRY
ACQUEAU
Water Technologies
CELTIC+
Telecommunication,
mobile
technologies
and internet infrastructures
EUROGIA
Renewable Energies
CATRENE
ICT: Micro and Nano Electronics
EURIPIDES
ICT: Smart Integrated Systems
ITEA 2
ICT: Software solutions, service software, ehealth, firmware
MANUFUTURE INDUSTRY
Manufacturing systems and technologies
Resource: Eureka website
4.1.2.1 Clusters: Large Companies in Network Coopetition
As EUREKA 2012-2013 Chairman Okan Kara declares, clusters are great source of
coopetition (Kara, 2012). Within cluster projects, actors share risks and benefits of
R&D&I endeavours, and aim to the development and exploitation of the
technologies created. It is possible to see three different forms of coopetition within
clusters:
1)
Industry leader large companies coopete for setting industry standards
2)
Large companies coopete for R&D&I
3)
Large and small companies coopete for R&D&I
10
Figure 12:Eureka Clusters and forms of coopetition
coopete
in R&D&I
Coopetition
between large
companies only
clusters
determine
industry
standards
open calls
for cluster
projects
Coopetition
between large and
small companies
In some projects
research institutes
and universities are
involved as well
Each cluster has a technological roadmap, where the needs and the challenges of the
industry are defined, and the technological areas that are needed to develop are
mentioned (ITEA 3 Booklet, 2012). Those roadmaps are created by the board of
management of the cluster, which consists of the leading big companies of the
industry (Yurttagul, EUREKA Turkey, National Project Coordinator. Interview 5).
Roadmaps are flexible and continuously adapt to the technological changes and the
needs of both the markets and the society. In order to have a multidisciplinary
approach for innovation, there is a collaborative formation between clusters, an intercluster committee where all EUREKA Clusters are represented in a rotating
chairmanship structure (ITEA 3 Booklet, 2012).
Clusters periodically open calls for the projects and collect applications of project
proposals from companies with different sizes: SMEs and the large ones,
accompanied by universities and research institutes. Cluster projects are expected to
11
be a good mixture of large, important companies, SMEs and academia (Handbook,
2011).
After the assessment process, successful candidates receive the cluster label. Once
the project gets the cluster label, the members of the cluster apply to their related
national funding organisation in their home countries (table t). The funds are
orchestrated by the cluster, and provided by the public authorities from EUREKA
member countries (Eurescom, 2012). Additionally to the outsider applicants, the
governing ‘big’ cluster members also might introduce projects, or participate in the
projects presented at the calls.
Figure 13:The process of cluster projects
firms apply
to clusters
for their
project
4.2
submit
application
project
evaluation
by Cluster
approved
projects
receive
cluster
label
apply for
funding to
national
bodies
Analysis of the Programmes
The previous section gave a brief introduction about Eurostars Programme and
Eureka Clusters. In that section, the advantages of network coopetition within those
programmes, and the importance of EUREKA as a coordinating and regulating
mechanism will be assessed. After that, the differences between SMEs and large
companies in terms of coopetition will be analysed.
4.2.1 Advantages of Eurostars and the Clusters
4.2.1.1 Advantages consistent with the Literature Review of Coopetition
When both programmes were analysed, it is possible to say that firms enjoy the
benefits of network coopetition in terms of innovation and learning, cost related and
market related advantages. Referring back to the figure 4 from the literature review
section, it is possible to place the advantages listed at that section within EUREKA
networks, as well (figure 14 ).
12
Both Clusters and Eurostars Programme stimulate knowledge sharing, new
knowledge creation and innovation stimulation. Indeed, involving parties share the
risk and cost (although projects are funded, finance might be needed at the initial
stage). Additionally to the common advantages, Eureka Clusters also enjoy the
benefits of market standardization and lobbying, which will be mentioned in details
later.
Figure 14: Advantages of coopetition mentioned at the literature review
COST RELATED
CLUSTERS
bargaining
power
market
standardization,
lobbying
economies
of scale
cost
sharing
advantages
of
coopetition
CLUSTERS
knowledge
share
risk
sharing
CLUSTERS
EUROSTARS
EUROSTARS
CLUSTERS
increased
innovation
and
learning
EUROSTARS
EUROSTARS
CLUSTERS
CLUSTERS
4.2.1.2 Additional advantages related to the existence of a coordinating
organisation
Furthermore this study comes up with other advantages of network coopetition that
involved parties enjoy, which are directly related to the existence of a coordinating
13
organisation; which is the EUREKA Organisation itself. Those advantages will be
assessed in details, and can be listed as followed:

EUREKA provides the framework of the necessary structure needed for the
smooth running of coopetition, and provides support and counselling on these
manners.

With the legal structure it requires the network to build and minimize the
threat of opportunism and trust problem of involved parties.

Being recognized as a EUREKA project provides a certain level of prestige.

It facilitates access to the necessary institutions, and provides access to
funding

EUREKA helps finding partners to coopete, and stimulates international
partnerships
Running Coopetition Smoothly and Solving the Trust and Opportunism Related
Issues
Once all primary and secondary data is analysed, it turns out that the requirements
candidate projects have to comply with do not only serve the purpose of choosing the
best promising projects, but they also serve the purpose of realizing the smooth
running of coopetition. Indeed, the legal structure that the project has to provide
minimises the threat of opportunism and helps solving the trust-related issues, by
making the projects built on a
strong legal basis to protect the firm-specific
knowledge and the property rights of the outcome of the coopetitive project (figure
15).
.
14
Figure 15: Consortium Requirements for Successful Coopetition
PROPERTY
RIGHTS
MANAGEMENT
• Consortium
• Non-disclosure
agreement
RISK
MANAGEMENT
GET READY TO
COOPETE &
GET
SUCCESSFUL
RESULTS
CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
• Define risks
• Cover-up options
• define decision
making and conflict
resolution
procedures
• Define roles and
responsibilities
Minimising the Threat of Opportunism and Solving Trust-related Issues
As it was discussed at the literature review section, almost all negative aspects about
coopetition seem related to the lack-of trust between partners. Once partners do not
trust each other regarding the threat of opportunism of competitors within a
coopetitive network, they either do not enter such formations or even if they are
already involved, they restrict the resources and capabilities shared with competitors,
which prevents getting optimum results from such relationships. In order to solve
these issues within EUREKA projects, Consortium Agreements carry utmost
importance. The very first thing that all interviewees mentioned to the question “how
trust is achieved and how the ideas are protected” was Consortium Agreements
(Zajak &Pogorzelski 2013- Interview 4, and Yurttagul, 2013-Interview 5). Indeed, a
strong and convincing consortium is a must for the project of getting approved
(Handbook, 2011).
15
Consortium Agreements are required to define clearly the involved parties, their
rights and responsibilities, and protection of property rights about the new product to
be created in the end of the project.
“The companies that are working in a given project, before they receive funds and
before the project is even approved, they have to define in a certain extent that how
they are going to deal with sharing the things that they create together (Zajak, 2013Interview 4).”
Building a Consortium Agreement, in other words, forming the structure of
coopetition, is a back and forth process, where firms are constantly in touch with a
national representative of Eureka, who counsels them in every aspect of providing
necessary formation and structures (Pogorzelski 2013, Interview 4).
In addition to the Consortium Agreement, a Non-Disclosure, or Confidentiality
Agreement is another mandatory requirement for each project application. These
agreements provide the assurance that no sensitive information will be shared with
any other parties; and that in case the project proposal does not succeed or a partner
to step out, the confidential information will not be further-used in a non-authorised
or in a damaging way (Interview 4 and 5), .
Additional to all the legal agreement framework, EUREKA advices all involving
parties to get to know about the basic concepts of intellectual property rights. At the
appendix, you can find confidentiality agreement and the skeleton for a EUREKA
Consortium and the checklist for provided for the formation of these agreements.
Providing the blueprint of the governance: Smooth governance and how to solve
the conflicting issues
For both Eurostars and Cluster Project application processes, it is also mandatory to
provide a sound project-management structure. By doing so, EUREKA forces
involved parties to create the necessary structures for the smooth running of the
coopetitive process. It is expected to clearly define a management structure, which
provides the roles and responsibilities about the project coordination, administrative
handling, technical coordination, and operational management. However, it is
mentioned that this structure should assure efficiency, but should not be
overstraining (CelticPlus, 2011).
16
Additional to the project management, it is also expected that the project provides a
sound structure in terms of managing possible conflicts. Regarding multiple
competitors are involved in a coopetitive framework, it is very likely to have
conflicts and those are needed to be efficiently managed to make project reach its
ultimate goal of creating an innovative product. As such, EUREKA requires the
candidates to provide a conflict management structure, where decision making and
voting procedures are defined in addition to a conflict resolution plan.
Regarding R&D&I projects involved risks, it also requirea projects to have a strong
risk management structure. That is why, it is mandatory to clearly disclose the
potential risks and the cover-up options related to those risks.
Once those requirements are complied, it means that the candidate project has:
- A management structure to keep the smooth running of the project.
- A strong legal structure to protect the property rights, and firm-specific
information.
- Awareness of the risks of the projects and plans for risk recovery.
- A strong framework to solve possible conflicts during the projects.
Prestige
Involving in a coopetitive formation via EUREKA provides a certain level of
prestige, as having a project approved by EUREKA requires carrying a significant
level of capabilities, and satisfaction and a certain level of quality standards
(appendix k for the standards required).
Once the project application is approved by EUREKA, the project receives the
EUREKA label, which is perceived as a symbol of prestige. As it is a proof of the
project’s quality, regarding the project has passed EUREKA’s rigorous assessment
procedures; the label enhances visibility and serves as a source of confidence for the
potential investors. A Eurostars Project, FlexGen’s Chief Scientific Officer Joop Van
Helvoort mentions in an interview that, having their project approved and partly
funded by a European Programme helped them a lot to get the rest of the money
from investors (CITE MAKE SURE). Another Eurostars Project, CrossJect‘s Chief
Technology Officer Patrick Alexander mentioned in an interview that Eurostars
17
Programme played an essential role in “counterbalancing the risk-aversion of private
investors” (EUREKA, 2011).
Celtic Plus label, as another example, “is the indication that a project successfully
passed the assessment, and it is considered and recommended as Celtic-Plus project”.
A project that received that label is perceived by the industry leaders from that
industry as promising, which in turns would make access to funding much easier
(Celtic Plus Handbook, 2011).
EUREKA also runs an advertising and marketing campaign on the EUREKA label.
In order to increase the awareness towards the EUREKA projects and their qualities,
they literally provide a branded label (figure 16), which has information about
EUREKA and some cutting-edge innovations achieved within EUREKA projects
(EUREKA website, 2013).
Figure 16: EUREKA Label
International Coopetition and Partner-Matching
EUREKA projects promote coopetition on an international level. To start a
EUREKA project, there has to be a minimum of one participant from minimum of
two EUREKA countries. Moreover, once a minimum of two partners are from
EUREKA member countries, it is allowed to have partners from non-EUREKA
countries (Eureka Website). Indeed, EUREKA helps finding partners via its partnermatching service. France-based Eurostars Project CrossJect‘s Chief Technology
18
Officer Patrick Alexander mentions the importance of Eurostars in terms of finding a
partner as: “Eurostars enabled CrossJect to create a real partnership with a company
with skills that could not be found in France.”
Facilitates Access to Public Institutions
One of the biggest opportunities of EUREKA is that it provides funding to the
projects, via public innovation-supporting structures. EUREKA networks facilitate
access to any related institution that the involving parties might need, as there are
national innovation-related institutions directly connected to EUREKA Organisation
Network itself.
4.2.2 Differences between SMEs and large companies
Regarding the responses of the interviewees, two main differences between SMEs
and large companies are detected. First difference is, SMEs and large companies are
involved in coopetition with different motivations. The second difference is that
SMEs are easier to adopt into a coopetitive formation compared to large companies
with their flexible nature.
4.2.2.1 Different intentions
Consistent with the literature review analysis, SMEs approach coopetition as a
necessity, where they do not have another option to access resources and capabilities
required to perform research and innovation activities. However, large companies
have two different motivations on joining into network coopetition.
In spite of the high potential of SMEs in innovation, the hi-tech industry is extremely
difficult to access, regarding the high cost levels. Those programs do not only help
SMEs to access to the required funding and capabilities, but also enable them to
access a network of best companies from varying sizes: this in turn would help them
in both product and business development.
“Small companies engage in coopetition because they have to, otherwise they won’t
be able to reach the required capabilities for innovation or the R&D.” (Zajak, 2013Interview 4)
Yurttagul (2013, interview 5) mentions that this necessity makes SMEs coopete more
dynamicly and aggressively. “Indeed, SMEs are more dynamic and aggressive in
19
terms of coopetition, as they also compete with other networks to be able to get the
label.” (Yurttagul 2013- Interview 5)
Big companies, on the other hand, hold two different motivations on involving in
coopetitive networks. The first motivation is providing industry standards. That is not
only in their own interest but for everyone in the industry, and the second one is that
in spite of they have enough resources and capabilities, involving in coopetition
helps them to get the critical mass and access to different perspectives in terms of
knowledge and innovation creation (Zajak &Pogorzelski 2013- Interview 4).
“This is also relevant for the technological ties for the big companies, they do not
have to actually, they all have capabilities, laboratories etc. but they want to work
together because they might find different things with different approaches. So they
still need some critical mass for the technological part.” (Zajak &Pogorzelski 2013)
4.2.2.2 Level of flexibility
As it was mentioned at the literature review, SMEs have more flexible structures
compared to large companies who are highly corporatized, which is consistent in
case of EUREKA’s coopetitive networks, as mentioned
by Yurttagul (2013,
Interview 5).
20
CASE2: AIRLINE NETWORK COOPETITION TURKISH AIRLINES IN STAR ALLIANCE
At the second case of this study; Star Alliance, and Turkish Airline’s Star alliance
membership will be analysed. This case first introduces the main characteristics and
trends of the global airline industry. Followed by a brief introduction of Star
Alliance; Turkish Airlines and its Star Alliance membership process will be
analysed. Finally, the analysis section will provide insights about the nature and
advantages of network coopetition in airline industry, and showing to what extent the
findings are consistent with the previous literature, and the additional contributions.
Figure 17:Direction of the Case
airline
industry
star
alliance
turkish
airlines
The reasons of choosing airline industry can be listed as follows:

Network coopetition is a significant feature of the global airline industry,
where three major alliances hold almost half of the global revenue. Within the
industry, not only airlines but airline alliances compete against each other.

Within alliances, it is possible to observe multiple types of coopetition, such
as coopetitive agreements of cost sharing, lobbying, and standard setting.

Alliance structures are great examples of coordinating and regulating
mechanisms for network coopetition.
21
5.1. Global Airline Industry: A Snapshot
The global airlines industry performs at a significant growth rate. According to Marketline
2012 Global Report, the market value increased by 10.5% and reached of $ 570.1 billion,
and the market volume has reached to 2.5 billion passengers. By 2016, the market value is
estimated to reach $ 1,091.4 billion by growing 91.4% from 2011. The market is also
expected to reach the volume of 3.1 billion passengers (Marketline, 2012). The industry
consists of over 2000 airlines, which operate with over 23000 aircraft in 3700 airports.
Figure 18: Market Value of Global Airline Industry
Market value ($ billion)
2011
2016(estimated)
570.1
1,091.4
Market value (number of 2.5
3.1
passengers, in billion )
Source: Marketline, 2012
5.2.
Alliances: Major Actors of the Industry
Global airline industry is shaped by three alliances: Star Alliance, SkyTeam, and OneWorld.
Those alliances hold almost half of the market share. The majority of the biggest airlines are
also involved in those alliances. However, there are also big actors who prefer not joining an
alliance and compete alone; such as Virgin Atlantic or Gulf Carriers.
“There are also airlines that indisputably have many resources, like Gulf carriers, for
instance. They want to be alone because they think they don’t need anyone else.” (Ekerim,
2013-Interview 3)
22
Figure 19: Competition in Global Airline Industry
Other airlines
Figure 20: A snapshot on the market share of alliances
23
Resource: Star Alliance, 2011
24
Table 9: Members of the three airline alliances
Adria Airways
Airberlin
Aeroflot
Aegean Airlines
British Airways
Aerolineas Argentinas
Air Canada
Cathay Pacific
Aeromexico
Air China
Finnair
Air Europa
Air New Zealand
Iberia
Air France
ANA
Japan Airlines
Alitalia
Asiana Airlines
LAN
China Airlines
Austrian
Malaysia Airlines
China Eastern
Avianca
Qantas
China Southern
Brussels Airlines
Royal Jordanian
Czech Airlines
Copa Airlines
S7 Airlines
Delta Airlines
Croatia Airlines
Kenya Airways
EGYPTAIR
KLM
Ethiopian Airlines
Korean Air
EVA Air
Middle East Airlines
LOT Polish Airlines
Saudia
Lufthansa
TAROM
Scandinavian Airlines
Vietnam Airlines
Shenzhen Airlines
Xiamen Air
Singapore Airlines
25
South African Airways
SWISS
TAM Airlines
TAP Portugal
THAI
Turkish Airlines
United
US Airways
Resources: Star Alliance, SkyTeam and OneWorld Websites
5.2.1.
The Factors Shifting Industry towards Alliances
“Airlines have entered into collaborative relationships with other airlines because that has
been the only way to produce what many customers want, and realize greater efficiencies in
operations.” (IATA, 2011)
The biggest factor for shifting airlines towards involving in alliance structures is the
increased demand from the global passengers, who want to travel from anywhere to
anywhere- either for business or leisure purposes. Airlines alone are not capable to obtain the
organic growth to extend to answer the demand of flying everywhere in the world, as their
network and aircrafts alone would not be sufficient. That put airlines into a position where
they become interdependent on each other’s networks. As Commercial Vice President of
Star Alliance Korenke (2011) claims, “Global travel demands linking networks.” Moreover,
regarding the strict foreign ownership restrictions set by host governments make airline
alliances as a close substitute of cross-border mergers (IATA, 2011).
Resource and capability insufficiencies of airlines to answer the demands of passengers
flying all around the world, and the strict regulative environment lead the first international
airline alliance, Star Alliance to emerge.
5.2.
Star Alliance
Star Alliance is the first and biggest airline alliance of the airline industry. Air Canada,
Lufthansa, SAS, Thai Airways International, and the United Airlines founded the alliance in
1997. Being the largest alliance of the industry, Star Alliance currently has 28 members (Star
Alliance, 2013).
26
Table 10: Basic facts on Star Alliance
Number of:
Countries Served
Airports
Daily Departures
Daily
Codeshare
Flights
189
1290
20835
27730
Resource: Star Alliance Annual Review 2011, Data from 2010 4rd Quarter
Europe
North
Central
South
America
America&Caribbean
America
Airports
393
49
104
308
Daily
10174
87
991
5368
Africa
Asia
Oceania
28
121
237
50
127
631
2870
587
Middle
East
Departures
Resource: Star Alliance Annual Review 2011, Data from 2010 4rd Quarter
5.2.1. Advantages of Star Alliance
“You create a common value in an alliance level where everyone within the alliance obtains
benefits. This is one of the biggest aims of these alliances: getting common service, using
common terminals, producing seats together. Alliances provide a scale covering all related
ones.” (Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3)
There are many academic studies focusing on the advantages of Airline Alliances such as
Iatrou and Oretti (2007), Youseff and Hansen, (2004), and Oum et al. (2000). The research
conducted by Iatrou and Oretti (2007) shows that airlines in general perceive network
sharing agreements as the most advantageous side of airline alliances, followed by loyalty
programs and cost sharing.
Likewise at the case 1, it is possible to summarise the advantages consistent with the
literature at figure 21, where cost and market related advantages are dominant.
27
Figure 21:Advantages of Coopetition in Airline Industry
COST RELATED
Star Alliance
Star Alliance
bargaining
power
Star Alliance
economies
of scale
advantages
of
coopetition
market
standardization,
lobbying
Star Alliance
knowledge
share
cost
sharing
risk
sharing
increased
innovation
and
learning
The coopetitive advantages that Star Alliance provides can be grouped as:

Strengthened network

Cost efficiency through common purchasing and facility sharing.

Lobbying and standard setting

Marketing airlines as a single high quality experience to the customers
5.2.1.1. Network Advantages
Alliances promote and facilitate code share agreements among member airlines, in order to
strengthen their destination networks. A codeshare agreement between two airlines provides
opportunity of selling tickets of each other’s flights with their own brand. For example, with
a codeshare agreement, Austrian Airlines can sell tickets to its passengers with its own
brand, for a flight of Turkish Airlines.
28
In such condition, increase of one airline’s network brings opportunity to other alliance
members to reach their passengers to these points, as well. Even a small-sized airline can
reach the opportunity of carrying its passengers to destinations that it could not achieve alone
(Alpan, 2013- interview 3).
“It is like combining telephone networks. The more extensions you connect, the more useful
the network becomes to the individual user.” Jaan Albrecht, Chief Executive Star Alliance
(2010)
Figure 22 Global Network of Star Alliance
Resource: Star Alliance Website
“Turkish Airline’s growth means increased options in terms of destinations for the other
airlines within the alliance, which in turn reflects in their ticket sales….the airlines within
the alliance provide each other links to the destinations they do not fly ”(Sari, 2013Interview 1). However, as Onur Alpan mentions, “they are commercial agreements’.
Airlines do not share all destination they fly, indeed do not share it with every alliance
member. Determining the partner and destination of codeshare agreement are all in the free
choice of the alliance members (Alpan, 2013-Interview 3).
29
5.2.1.2. Cost Share Advantages
Common Purchasing
“The main benefits come from savings generated from the combined purchasing power of
the airlines.” Tzvetina Tassovska-Fuel Purchasing Manager, Star Aliance. (Star Alliance,
2011)
Cost cutting via common purchasing is one of biggest advantages that the alliance provides.
In aviation, a wide spectrum of purchasing takes place. Once a new aircraft is purchased, for
instance, it is only the body bought from Boeing or Airbus. Then all other parts, such as
engine, wheels, seats, etc. are purchased separately (Alpan and Ekerim, 2013- Interview 3).
In addition to aircraft parts, fuel is one of the biggest necessities of the airlines, which is one
of the highest sources of cost. Moreover, at the supply side, the airlines do not have a big
variety of suppliers, indeed the fuel prices are fluctuating (Marketline, 2012).
At this stage, alliances facilitate airlines to make collective purchasing, which in turns
increases their bargaining power over the suppliers and getting lower fares regarding higher
levels of purchase. According to the Star Alliance Annual Review (2011), Star Alliance led
annual savings of over $26 million in 2011 via common purchasing. “The high cost of fuel is
uppermost in the minds of all airline executives. Star Alliance has a significant role to play to
help them find better ways to buy the fuel, and more efficient ways to use it.” Tzvetina
Tassovska-Fuel Purchasing Manager, Star Alliance. (Star Alliance, 2011)
In addition to common purchasing, Star Alliance also had a project of manufacturing
economy seats, by deploying a manufacturing partner. With the project, purchasing prices
and maintenance costs decreased (Star Alliance, 2011).
Facility Share
Another source of cost cutting within the alliance membership is the agreements for bilateral
or common share of airline facilities among the alliance members.
One type of the facility sharing is gate or slot sharing. Once an airline is about opening a new
destination, it has to get a slot/gate from the arriving airport. It is a big challenge, especially
for smaller airlines, because in the popular destinations, “big” airlines already keep the
popular slots/gates; even if not, airlines charge very high level of fees for these slots that
small ones might not afford. This leads many airlines to get the off-peak time slots, or
choosing a less-popular destination as arrival point; which both would turn the decrease on
demand for those flights (Marketline, 2012). In such cases, the big airlines who keep the gate
with the long-term agreements at that destination, may sub-let the gate to the smaller airline
from the alliance (Li and Netessine, 2011) .
30
Another type of facility sharing within Star Alliance Members is the use of common ground
handling services, which led over € 7,53 million in 3 years within Europe (Star Alliance,
2009). Common bag-drop check in for all member airlines is another project, which would
decrease labour cost and increase the bag-drop check in (Star Alliance, 2011). Shared selfservice kiosk machines for alliance members also another source of cost saving.
5.2.1.3. Lobbying and Standard Setting
Airline industry is a highly regulated industry, where airlines face legal compliance
requirements in every destination they operate. An alliance provides advantage in terms of
lobbying, as airlines raise their voices as one, and represent their opinions or react
collectively where all airlines will be affected in the end (Ekerim, 2013- interview 3).
Star Alliance makes airlines perceived as a single entity by the suppliers, as mentioned in the
previous section. This perception also provides opportunity for member airlines to intervene
with their demands in shaping future products, as well. Airbus, for instance, adjusted its
aircraft design regarding the analysis made by Star Alliance (Klick, 2009), (Star Alliance,
2011).
5.2.1.4. Serving High Quality of Customer Experience: Alliance Passengers
Star Alliance serves all member airlines as a part of a big product: A worldwide network
where alliance passengers have a certain level of quality with seamless travel experience,
and privileges of being frequent flyer with loyalty program benefits.
Star Alliance targets “high value international travellers”, passengers travelling frequently,
demand the ability of flying ‘from anywhere to anywhere’, and expect to be recognized
everywhere (Star Alliance, 2009). Aerospace Sector Specialist Ray Neidl: “Frequent
travellers are definitely paying attention to alliance airlines for both accumulating frequent
flyer points and for the convenience of connectivity” (Star Alliance, 2011). Within the
competitive environment where low-cost airlines challenge legacy airlines with the price
pressure (Marketline 2012), high quality experience provided within Star Alliance is a strong
advantage to survive in competition.
For those passengers, “Star Alliance experience” has two important components: seamless
travel, and loyal customer benefits.
Seamless travel means that, once the passenger is about having linking flights among Star
Alliance members, he/she checks in only once and collects all the tickets, drop the luggage in
the first departure point and collect it at the very final destination (Star Alliance, 2011).
Seamless travel faces increased demand, particularly by passengers who have many linked
flights for long distance destinations. Seamless travel carries utmost role in the increase of
31
the quality of the travel experience, as it eliminates the effort of collect-and drop the luggage
with the stress of catching the check in or the boarding of the next flight. “Star Alliance
promises a passenger the seamless travel, which requires cooperation in many areas; or coinvests in those areas to provide the seamless experience, and obtaining benefits in return.”
(Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3)
The loyalty benefits, on the other hand, provide the frequent flyer passengers the privilege of
being recognised by all member airlines with the guarantee of a certain level of comfort and
priorities. It is claimed that, recognition and benefits to Frequent Flyer Programs are the
cornerstone of Star Alliance, in terms of the amount of passengers it attracts. According to
2011 data, Star Alliance has 20 FFP’s with 187 million members, where 2 million of gold
and almost 4 million of silver membership (Star Alliance, 2011). All frequent flyer
passengers (FFP’s) can benefit from lounges of any alliance members, regardless of which
airline they currently fly. Moreover, they enjoy benefits such as priority check in and
boarding, and extra baggage allowance (Star Alliance, 2009).
However, the biggest advantage of the common FFP’s is , as proved with surveys conducted
by Star Alliance, is that passengers can collect and use their miles they gathered from any
alliance member airline at any alliance member. “Customers recognise that the ability to earn
and burn miles across the airlines is a major benefit.” Christopher Kronke, VP Commercial
Star Alliance (Star Alliance, 2011).
Those advantages and the common perception of quality standards of overall travel
experience lead passengers to choose airlines within the alliances “A loyal passenger of
United for 30 years, for instance, for a destination where United does not fly to, chooses an
airline within the Star Alliance instead of loads of other options. So he/she can benefit from
the lounges of other Star Alliance members, for instance.” (Sari, 2013-Interview 1)
Furthermore, Star Alliance introduces products specially designed for different passenger
segments, and member airlines involve in those products. As a popular product example, the
Around the World product provides leisure travellers the option to buy a world tour
experience from Star Alliance, where Star Alliance links many member’s flights within that
product (Cicek, 2013-Interview 2). In terms of business solutions products, for instance, Star
Alliance provides simplicity to corporations by providing their travel plans to be managed
with one single contract, instead of many separate flight booking arrangements and contract
overloads that companies have to plan and handle (Star Alliance 2009), (Star Alliance 2011).
32
5.2.2.
Joining Star Alliance: How to Become a Member
Regarding the industry conjuncture, and the advantages addressed above, it is attractive for
an airline to join an alliance. However, becoming an alliance member is not an easy task. In
order to ensure continuity and improvement of the overall alliance quality, member airlines
are required to have strong capabilities and possess high level of quality. As Jaan Albrecht,
Chief Executive Star Alliance declares: ‘Two weak partners never make a strong alliance’.
5.2.2.1. Standards need to be set, within the given timeframe
To become a member of Star Alliance, there are set of standards in almost every aspect or
steps of the airline operations, with two reasons:

Assuring the quality standards of the Star Alliance experience

Obtaining the harmonization, making every member compatible for all operations
within the alliance.
“An airline is approved only if It provides the increase and continuity of Star Alliance
quality, and if only it satisfies the security requirements, or the whole service quality”
(Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3)
As the analogy used by Onur Alpan, candidate airlines to join alliance are like countries that
apply for the European Union membership. The airlines experience accession negotiations
by fulfilling requirements of Star Alliance provides. There is a long list of minimum
requirements that all candidate airlines have to comply with. Those requirements vary
“From the colour of the label attached to the business class passenger’s luggage to be
distinguished, to sharing the cost share sales reports and some other data with a determined
format within determined periods.” (Alpan and Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3).
5.2.2.2.
Finish the tasks in time
All the comprehensive integration process, in other words, getting all aspects of the airline
aligned with the standardization of Star Alliance, takes minimum of one year. However, this
integration process carries many deadlines within a time framework, and the candidate
member has to comply successfully comply. Once the candidate member does not take the
required initiatives, the integration process might stop and the candidateship status might be
lost. Air India, for instance, lost its candidateship status as it could not fulfil the requirements
within the given timeframe (Alpan and Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3). .
5.2.2.4. Reputation Matters
As Sari (2013-Interview 1) mentions, the reputation of the candidate airline in terms of its
quality, safety, and the timing success on take-off and landings carry utmost importance. For
33
instance, it is not possible for an airline with many accident reports to be approved by the
alliance.
5.2.2.5. Member Airlines State their Opinion
Star Alliance member airlines hold have voting rights, declared by the founding charters.
Correspondingly, member airlines also have right to express their ideas about the candidate
member (Alpan and Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3).
Member airlines can stand for or against the candidate member to join the alliance. It is
important that members can decide with whom to coopete. As a specific example, at the code
share flights, the airline wants to be sure about the safety and the service quality that their
own passengers experience (Cicek, 2013- Interview 2).
5.2.2.6. Decision Process
“At the very beginning of the process, there is a concept called White Spot. Star examines
many markets on behalf of the airlines. For example, which airlines are active in Russia,
which one can make a contribution, who can possibly be the new partners, etc.” (Ekerim,
2013-Interview 3)
Once the new candidate potential is recognised, member airlines express their opinion about
the candidate. If the majority of the members approve the potential candidate, the integration
process starts. The integration process of a candidate member runs transparently, where
member airlines can follow, and are regularly informed by the alliance about the certain
highlights about the integration process. In case of member airlines do not approve the
candidate to join the alliance, the joining process stops, just like in the case of Air India,
which is mentioned in the previous section. Once Air India could not finish the integration
tasks within the given timeline, the member airlines voted against its membership (Alpan
and Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3).
Figure 23: Membership Process for Star Alliance
White Spot
potential
member
introduced
Members
vote
integration
process
members
vote
34
5.4. Turkish Airlines
5.4.1. About the Company
Turkish Airlines, with its original name “Turk Hava Yollari Yatirim Ortakligi”, is a Turkeybased airline company, providing domestic and international airline transport, and cargo
services (Turkish Airlines, 2011).
Having one of the strongest international networks and being one of the biggest airlines of
Europe, the company operates in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Far East, and North
America (Marketline, 2012). The company positions itself as a mix of high quality service
with competitive prices. (Sari, 2013-Interview 1)
Figure 24: Turkish Airlines Organisational Structure
TURKISH AIRLINES
AIR
TRANSPORTATION
PASSENGER
CARGO
AIRCRAFT
TECHNICAL
MAINTENANCE
TECHNICAL AND
TRAINING SERVICES
ONLINE SERVICES:
E-ticket, online
check in, etc.
Resource: Marketline 2012
Figure 25: Facts and Figures about Turkish Airlines
35
Number of Destinations: Turkish Airlines
160
140
142
134
120
100
102
107
80
60
40
20
0
2004
2005
Number of destinations
2006
Column1
2007
Column2
Resource: Turkish Airlines Annual Report
5.4.2.1. Strong Network
Flying to over 200 destinations all over the world, Turkish Airlines is the 10th biggest
company in terms of the number of international passenger it carries(IATA, 2012), and the
biggest company in terms of the numbers of countries it operates in (Alpan 2013, Interview
3)..
36
Turkish Airlines enjoy the strategic position of Istanbul, where it is possible to reach 55
countries within 3.5 hours fly (Marketline, 2012).Via this hub, east and west flights are
connected more efficiently and less costly. Europe or Gulf-based airlines, which do not have
such strategic hub, have to use bigger jets as they have to fly for longer destinations without
a break. Those jets are difficult to fill, requiring higher fuel cost. Indeed, their size restricts
the number of the airports they could get a slot. Overall, this brings Turkish Airlines a huge
operational efficiency.
Table 11:Ranking of European airlines
Ranking
Airline
Number of international
passengers (In Thousands)
1
Ryanair
79,649
2
Lufthansa
50,877
3
Easyjet
44,601
4
Emirates
37,733
5
Air France
33,693
6
British Airways
31,273
7
KLM
25,775
8
United Airlines
24,843
9
Air Berlin
23,179
10
Turkish Airlines
22,381
Resource: IATA website, WATS 57th edition (WATS:World Airline Transport Statistics)
5.5. Turkish Airlines and Star Alliance
All interviewees had consensus on the main motivation of Turkish Airlines joining Star
Alliance, which is using Star Alliance membership as an accreditation for its quality and
prestige. It enjoyed the cost or network benefits of the alliance as well, however those have
been secondary benefits for the airline.
37
5.5.1. Deciding to Join Star Alliance: Decision And Integration Processes
Turkey joined Star Alliance on the 1st April, 2008. As it was mentioned by all interviewees,
Turkish Airlines joined the alliance with a strong dedication but no hesitation.
During decision making process, Turkish Airlines Headquarter had a period of intensive
analysis, in order to determine the costs and benefits of joining the alliance. Once it was
decided to join, the period of accession negotiations started, which lasted approximately for
one and half years (Sari, 2013-Interview 1), (Alpan and Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3).
The integration process coordinated by the International Relations and Alliances
Department, where Mr Alpan was on duty during that process, as well.
5.5.2. Star Alliance-Turkish Airlines Relationships
International Relations and Alliances Department of Turkish Airlines is the main body
running the relationships with Star Alliance.
Star Alliance provides three types of memberships, where their costs, benefits and
responsibilities are varying from the highest to the lowest, depending on the level. Turkish
Airlines, with seven other airlines, keep the highest status of membership: which has highest
involvement in the decision making process, highest level of responsibilities and highest
membership fee, indeed (Alpan, 2013-Interview 3). Ekerim (2013, Interview 3) defines it as
a membership type which shapes the alliance, in the mover and the shaker position.
5.5.3. Benefits for Turkish Airlines: Prestige and Increased Brand Awareness
Like any member airline, Turkish Airlines also benefits from the alliance in terms of
network, cost and sales effects, and the customer experience as assessed in the previous
section. “Turkish Airlines joined the Star Alliance by thinking that it would be extremely
benefactions, as we experience its results today. You both improve your relationships with
other airlines and you benefit from the ‘whole“(Sari, 2013-Interview 3)
However, the greatest advantage of Star Alliance membership, which have been the main
motivation to join the alliance as well, is using the Star Alliance membership as a manner of
prestige. In other words, Turkish Airlines used the ‘Star Brand‘ to increase its brand
awareness.
As Alpan (2013, Interview 3) and Sari (2013, Interview 3) mentions, Turkish Airlines had its
main growth thrusts independent from Star Alliance membership. Indeed, the airline has
already been holding significant advantages in terms of geographical positioning and low
labour costs.
38
“One of the biggest reasons for us to join Star Alliance was increasing our brand awareness,
we used it very successfully, and we still use the benefits of the Star brand. (...) Our minor
targets were the ones that the alliance already serves, promises“(Ekerim, 2013-Interview 3).
Alpan mentions that, before joining Star Alliance, demand for the airline was less because
the passengers knew neither their strong network nor high quality service. “Before Turkish
Airlines joined Star Alliance, Turkish Airlines was known as a local airline that carried
Turkish workers living in Europe-in spite of it is not. There was a serious prejudice. (....)
With Star, the more people tried, the more this prejudice had vanished“(Alpan, 2013Interview 3).
“We put ourselves into the Champions League by joining Star Alliance. (...) We entered into
a very big group and it is a manner of prestige“ (Sari, 2013- Interview 1).
5.5.4. Disadvantages of Star Alliance
In spite of the advantages the airline alliances provide, becoming alliance member also has
its disadvantages. It is a handicap that Star Alliance restricts the strategic interaction of
member airlines with airlines from different alliances, mentioned by Alpan and Ekerim (
2013, Interview 3).
In terms of destination network, a Star Alliance member airline would like to have a
codesharing agreement with an airline from another alliance, namely Skyteam or Oneworld.
It might be because of there is no Star Alliance member flying to that destination, or that
airline from another alliance would be a better option than any airline from Star Alliance.
Star Alliance either does not allow such coopetitive agreement, or it grants a short-term
exception. In such case, all Star Alliance member airlines’ opinions are taken. Once the
consensus by members provided, the exception might be valid.
It is possible to reason this restriction with competition among alliances, and the endeavour
of concentrating coopetitive ties within alliance. However it is a significant setback in an
industry where the destination networks carry huge importance. Turkish Airlines had to
suffer from this regulation, while it was about having a commercial agreement with TAM
Airlines (Star Alliance member), TAM Airlines decides merging with LAN, and becoming
LATAM, and joining SkyTeam. Consequently, the negotiation process between Turkish
Airlines and TAM has cancelled and Turkish Airlines is currently seeking for other potential
partners.
39
5.6. Findings on Nature of Coopetition n Airline Industry
5.6.1. Do All Participants Benefit Equally?
It is clear that all participants benefit from coopetition. However, it is difficult to say that
everyone benefits to the same extent. It is dependent on the activities airlines involve within
alliance, and the size and capabilities of the airline itself.
Star Alliance provides an umbrella of coopetitive benefits such as common purchasing and
facility sharing, where it is airline’s free will to join or not.
On the other hand, in terms of destination network advantages, it all depends on the
attractiveness of airline as a coopetitive partner. It is so surprising for airlines to coopete with
the ones would bring the maximum returns in the end.
5.6.2. Increased Level of Competition
International Air Transport Association (IATA) claims that market competition authorities
are sometimes concerned about the possibility of alliances to decrease level of competition,
and consequently overall customer benefits (IATA, 2011). It is actually natural to expect the
competition level to decrease among coopetitor airlines. Li and Netessine (2011) also
expected similarly, however their study showed the opposite. Once airlines decrease their
cost levels and strengthen their networks through coopetition; they become even more
competitive. The case of Turkish Airlines in Star Alliance also proves this view.
“Competing and partnering do not rule each other out“ Jaan Albrecht, Chief Executive Star
Alliance
Moreover, Sari (2013, Interview 1), touches another factor which accelerates coopetition. As
previously mentioned, alliance provides passengers a variety of airline selections, which
makes it so easy for passenger to discover another airline as an alternative carrier.
Figure 26: Increased competition amongst competitors
DECREASE COSTS
INCREASED
COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
INCREASED MULTIMARKET
COMPETITION WITHIN
ALLIANCE
IMPROVE
DESTINATION
NETWORK
40
5.6.3. Future of Coopetition in Airline Industry
An interesting finding is, that airline alliances become significantly beneficial, however
insufficient to answer all needs of airlines (Ekerim and Alpan, 2013-interview 3). Additional
to network coopetition, dyadic agreements take place within alliances,in the form of joint
ventures. It is claimed that it is a possible scenario for those joint ventures to become more
dominant over alliances, and that the alliances to lose its popularity in the future.
”The changing conditions of the markets require different types of collaborations. Alliances
do not get enough to answer the needs of the actors in every market. The concept of joint
venture is currently popular. And this is a question in every airline’s agenda. All airlines
constantly seek for what to do, where to do and with whom to do.”(Ekerim 2013, interview
3)
5.7. Conclusion
This case aimed to provide an overview to the nature and benefits of network coopetition
in airline industry. Consistent with the literature, this case shows that airline alliances
provide advantages of network coopetition in terms of cost and market-related advantages.
Airlines enjoy the benefits of cost efficiency and involving in market standardization and
lobbying activities. Indeed, consistent with the first case study, Star Alliance also showed the
importance of a coordinating organisation within network coopetition. Combined with the
Star Alliance membership of Turkish Airlines, this case shows that becoming an alliance
member provides a significant level of prestige, regarding the rigorous quality standards it
sets for the member airlines. Indeed, this level of prestige enables alliance serve the airlines
as a part of an exclusive global travel experience to the global-travelling passengers.
The case also provided findings about the nature of coopetition. It is claimed that involving
in a coopetitive relationship does not oppress the competition, even accelerates, due to the
increased competitive advantages that involving parties obtain. The case also showed that
network coopetition does not provide all coopetitors to benefit at the same level; as airlines
decide to what type of coopetitive relationships to involve in, and to what extent. It was also
another important finding that coopetition is a useful strategy, but not sufficient to answer all
needs of the airlines in the global competitive industry. It was claimed that the sub-groups
within coopetition keep their inner-dynamics more prior to the alliance dynamics, which
might make alliances less desired and effective.
41
6. Cross Case Analysis
This section provides a brief cross analysis of two cases, demonstrating to what extent they
have similarities and differences.
6.1. Similarities
6.1.1. On Advantages of Coopetition
6.1.1.1. Consistent Findings with Literature Review
In both cases, many advantages of coopetition mentioned by the previous literature were
observed, as summarized at the figure 27. At EUREKA case, the advantages of coopetition
mostly based on learning and innovation related advantages, followed by market related
advantages. At the case of Star Alliance and Turkish Airlines, it is observed that advantages
of coopetition are mostly cost and market related.
Figure 27:Advantages of coopetition in both cases
COST RELATED
CLUSTERS
Star Alliance
Star Alliance
economies
of scale
bargaining
power
market
standardization,
lobbying
EUROSTARS
cost
sharing
advantages
of
coopetition
Star Alliance
CLUSTERS
Star Alliance
knowledge
share
CLUSTERS
risk
sharing
CLUSTERS
CLUSTERS
EUROSTARS
increased
innovation
and
learning
CLUSTERS
6.1.1.2 Additional Findings to the Literature Review
Importance of a Network Coordinating
Organisation EUROSTARS
EUROSTARS
42
Additional to the advantages consistent with the previous literature analysis, both studies
showed the importance of a regulative and coordinating organisation. In both cases it was
observed that those regulating and coordinating organisations (EUREKA in case 1 and Star
Alliance in case 2) provide necessary structures for the smooth running of coopetition, help
to solve the trust related issues and minimise the threat of opportunism; which all in turn
increase the success of the network coopetition. Moreover, the high standards set by those
organisations make being a member of these networks a matter of prestige. This advantage
has been observed as increased brand image in Turkish Airlines and ease to convince
investors for their project in EUREKA Projects.
6.1.2 On Nature of Network Coopetition
6.1.2.1 Importance of Trust
Both cases augmented that trust is an important issue in coopetition. In case of EUREKA,
trust issue arises as a matter of firm specific knowledge and property right protection,
whereas in case of Airlines it is a matter of trusting partners to provide good quality
standards for customers, or not being exploited by the coopetitors in any other way. As it
was previously emphasised, the existence of a coordinating organisation helps minimizing
these concerns, with legal and regulative structure and the standards they set.
6.1.2.2 Competition remains, even increases
Both cases show that involving in a coopetitive relationship does not kill the rivalry between
competitors. Indeed, once all parties get better off, they have stronger resource and
capabilities to challenge each other; in turns, competition might increase.
6.2 Differences
Although the findings of the two cases do not contradict each other, they carry some
differences and varieties. Those varieties and differences once more show that, coopetition
should be investigated through case studies from various industries to get a better
understanding about its nature and dynamics.
6.2.1 Different Motivations to Coopete
The cases illustrate different motivations towards involving in a network coopetition. In case
of EUREKA, the main motivation is to lead innovations through coopetitive R&D&I
projects; either for firms own benefit, or for the goodwill of all industry with an industry
shaping and standard determining innovation. The insufficiency of the firm’s own resources
or the need of different knowledge and perspectives for innovation leads innovating firms to
coopete.
43
In case of Airlines, on the other hand, the demand of passengers to travel “from anywhere to
anywhere”, the high operating costs, and the regulative restrictions towards airline mergers
are the main factors on joining in a coopetitive alliance.
6.2.2 Future of Coopetition
In case of EUREKA, interviewees claimed that they think coopetition will become a more
widespread strategy. Whereas at the Star Alliance case, it was claimed that alliances alone
are not sufficient in responding the needs of airlines, and that dyadic agreements would be
more dominant over alliances in the future.
44
7. CONCLUSION
The coopetition strategy promises significant advantages for firms in the era of intensive
global competition. In spite of the increased interest on coopetition as a research subject, it
remains as an under-researched area with many gaps in the literature, including the lack of a
generally accepted definition and lack of a strong theoretical framework.
This study contributes to the concept of coopetition from both theoretical and empirical
aspects. First of all, after the analysis of the literature on coopetition, it provides a definition
of coopetition, as “a strategic relationship, where firms from the same industry compete and
cooperate simultaneously within a dynamic structure, in order to benefit from the synergies
and efficiencies created through the common deployment of resource and capabilities in
various areas and stages of their businesses”.
In empirical terms, two cases on coopetition provide insights about the nature and
advantages of coopetition in network form. Combining the theoretical and empirical
findings, this study answers its research questions as follows:
1)
How is the nature of coopetition and what are the advantages of coopetitive strategy?
Coopetition is a complex and paradoxical relationship regarding the contradicting natures of
competition and collaboration. Companies involved in such formation because their own
resources and capabilities are not sufficient to answer the demands of the market they
operate in, and competitors are sometimes the best partners in that manner, with their similar
resources which would complement each other. Compared to dyadic coopetition, where two
companies coopete, network coopetition is even more dynamic, complex, and multifaceted.
Firms involved in coopetition cooperate to reach specific goals, however they remain as
rivals. It is claimed that in case of airline coopetition the increased competitive advantage
through coopetition increases the level of competition among coopetitors. In network
coopetition, it is also possible to observe that coopetitive networks compete with each other,
just like at the airline industry.
An important issue about coopetition is the importance of trust between partners. All the
negative concerns about coopetition rely on the lack of trust. Once partners do not trust in
each other, the concern of being exploited by the other side rises and they do not deploy their
resource and efforts sufficiently. Consequently, the coopetitive formation fails.
Consistent with the previous literature, it was observed in both studies that network
coopetition provides cost, market, and knowledge sharing and innovation related advantages.
45
Moreover, both case studies showed the advantages related to the existence of a coordinating
organisation within network coopetition, a subject that has not been focused on before.
2)
What is the role and importance of a coordinating organisation in network
coopetition?
Both cases showed that coordinating organisations (EUREKA in case 1 and Star Alliance in
case 2) play significant roles in the success and smooth running of network coopetition.
First, it is very likely that competing partners would have conflicts while they coopete. The
coordinating organisations provide necessary structures for the smooth running of
coopetition. EUREKA provides this by setting management structures for the coopetitive
network, and the legal agreements, which determines the roles and responsibilities of the
involved parties. Star Alliance; on the other hand, provides this by taking a role of an entity
protecting the overall benefits of member airlines, by preventing any airline to be worse off
during coopetition, depending on the founding charters.
The second important contribution of those organisations is on solving the trust issue
between coopetitive partners and minimizing the threat of opportunism. Due to the legal
structure of those organisations they minimize opportunism and increase trust among
partners. Moreover, the quality standards they set for joining the network assure involving
parties about the capabilities of their coopetitors. Moreover, those quality standards provide
involving parties a significant level of prestige, as being approved as a member of the
network is a proof of their quality level. It has been observed that this contribution on
prestige had been the greatest advantage of Turkish Airlines, whereas EUREKA projects
used that prestige to attract investors towards their projects.
Moreover, the standards set by those organisations equip involving parties with vital
qualifications required for the coopetition to succeed.
3)
What are the differences between SMEs and large companies in terms of their
The EUREKA case illustrates the differences between SMEs and large companies on
coopetition, in the areas of research, development and innovation. It was concluded that
SMEs and large companies have different motivations involving in coopetition. The
EUREKA case illustrates that SMEs approach coopetition towards a necessity that they
involve in because they have no other chance. On the other hand, large companies involve in
coopetition in spite of they have capabilities and resources (laboratories, equipment, etc) ,
46
however they need different perspectives and ideas to innovate. Moreover, large companies
coopete to set industry standards, where everybody in the industry would benefit from.
Compared to large companies, the level of necessity makes SMEs coopete more
aggressively. Moreover, their flexible structure make SMEs adopt in coopetitive formations
easier than large companies, who have more strict and corporatized structures.
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Coopetition literature has many gaps. The concept has a multifaceted and complex nature,
where every feature of coopetition should be analysed, and be discovered more about its
nature via case studies from various sectors. However, the time and length limit of this study
leaves this study with the borders it has now.
In this section, I would like to suggest a particular research subject about coopetition. In
order to obtain background information about the concept, two interviews were conducted
with the representatives of Turkey’s biggest SME supporting organisation, SME
Development Agency, about a coopetition-supporting programme the agency provides to
SMEs. The highlight of the findings from the interviews ( interview no and no ) were, that
SMEs from a certain region are reluctant to involve in coopetition in manufacturing area, as
they do not trust in each other; in spite of the agency provides legal formation to protect
them from opportunism. Indeed, both interviewees claimed that, lack of trust and reluctance
towards involving in an interdependent structure is peculiar to the culture of people living in
that region (Kaplan 2013, Anonymous 2013). It is expected these findings to inspire future
research of trust issue in coopetition, and its relationship with culture.
47
REFERENCES

Abdallah, F., Wadhwa, A. (2009). Collaborating With Your Rivals: Identifying Sources
of Coopetitive Performance. Paper to be presented at the Summer Conference 2009 on
CBS - Copenhagen Business School

Afuah, A. (2000). “How much do your coopetitors’ capabilities matter in the face of
technological change?”Strategic Management Journal, 21(Special Issue): 387-404.

Akdogan, A.A., Cingoz A. (2012). An Empirical Study on Determining the Attitudes of
Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMEs) Related To Coopetition . Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 58 pp. 252 – 258.

Albrecht, J. (2010). Speech. To the Tony Jannus Distinguished Aviation Society, For
Receiving Their 2010 Award. http://www.staralliance.com/assets/doc/en/press/pressreleases/pdf/2010/2010-JaanAlbrecht-TonyJannusAward-ev4.pdf

Alpan, O. (2013). Personal Interview

Amaldoss, W., Meyer, R., Raju, J., Rapoport, A. (2000). Collaborating to Compete.
Marketing Science. Spring, 19 (2). p.105-126.

Arranz, N., Arroyabe, J.C.F. (2008). The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: an
empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation Vol.28, p.88–100.

Barney, J. (2011). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage ( 4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management. 17(1). p.99-120

Barnir, A., Smith, K. A. (2002). Interfirm Alliances in the Small Business: The Role of
Social Networks. Journal of Small Business Management 40(3). p.219–232.

Bayona, C. Garcia-Marco,T.,Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’ Motivations For Cooperative
R&D: An Empirical Analysis of Spanish Firms. Research Policy. 30(8). p.1289–1307.

Bengtsson, M., Kock S. (2000), Coopetition in Business Networks - to Cooperate and
Compete Simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (5). p.411-426.

Bernal, S.M.H., Burr, C., Johnsen, R.E., (2002). Competitor Networks: International
Competitiveness Through Collaboration. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research. 8 (5). p. 239–253.

Bigliardi B., Dormio A.I. , Galati F. (2011). Successful Co-Opetition Strategy: Evidence
From an Italian Consortium. International Journal Of Business, Management And Social
Sciences. 2(4). p. 1-8
48

Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V. (2012). Coopetition: Performance Implications and
Management Antecedents. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol.16(5)

Breznitz, D. (2007). Coopetition Regimes and State-Led Creation of New High
Technology Industries. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1079395 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1079395

Carayannis, E. G., Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by Co-opeting in Strategic
Government–University– Industry R&D Partnerships: The Power of Complex, Dynamic
Knowledge Networks. Journal of Technology Transfer. 24(2–3). p.197–210.

Castaldo, S., Dagnino G.B., (2009), ―Trust and coopetition: the strategic role of trust in
interfirm coopetitive dynamics‖, in Dagnino, G.B., Rocco E. (2009), (eds) Coopetition
strategy, theory, experiments and cases. Routledge: London

CATRENE Cluster Website. Vision, Mission and Strategy:. Catrene website

Celtic Plus. (2011) Handbook. Celtic Plus Project Manual , 2011. Celtic Plus Website.

Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical
Integration. Academy of Management Review 21(1). p.100– 134.

Cherington, P.T. (1913) Advertising as a Business Source.
Doubleday, page and
Company for the Associated Advertising Clubs of America. New York. E-book format
availabehttp://www.archive.org/stream/advertisingasbus00cher#page/n5/mode/2up

Chien, T. H., Peng, T. J. (2005). Competition and Cooperation Intensity in a Network-A
Case Study in Taiwan Simulator Industry. Journal of American Academy of Business
7(2). p.150–155.

Chin, K.-S., B. L. Chan, La, P.K. (2008). "Identifying and prioritizing critical success
factors for coopetition strategy." Industrial Management & Data Systems 108(4): 437454

Cicek, F.B. (2013) Personal Interview

Coy, P (2006). Sleeping with the enemy. Business Week, August 21/28, p.96–97.

Curado, C.(2006) The Knowledge Based-View Of The Firm: From Theoretical Origins
To Future Implications.Working Paper. ISEG – Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.

Dagnino, G. B., Padula, G. (2002). Coopetition Strategy: A New Kind of Interfirm
Dynamics for Value Creation. Paper presented at the European Academy of
Management SecondAnnual Conference “Innovative Research in Management”,
Stockholm

Dagnino, G.B. (2009), ―Coopetition strategy: a new kind of interfirm dynamic for value
creation‖, in (eds) Dagnino, G.B., Rocco E. (2009), Coopetition strategy, theory,
experiments and cases. Routledge: London.
49

Das, T.K. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of
Management, Vol.26, p.36-61.

Devetag, M.G. (2009), ―Coordination and trust as prerequisites of coopetition:
experimental evidence‖, in Dagnino, G.B., Rocco E. (2009), (eds) Coopetition strategy,
theory, experiments and cases. Routledge: London.

Diener, E., Crandall, R. Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. University Of
Chicago Press, 1978
From Handbook Of Qualitative Research Methods for
International Business, Edited by Rebecca Marschan-Piekkari and Catherine Welch.
Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004.
Dress for the Dance with the Devil.Centre for European Economic Research. Discussion
Paper No.07-045

Dunning, John H., “Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Issues
Stated” in John H. Dunning (ed.), Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge Economy,
Oxford University Press, Developing Knowledge-based International Businesses in
Emerging Economies 9 (2000)

Dussauge, P., Garrette,B., Mitchell,W. (2000). Learning from Competing Partners:
Outcomes and Durations of Scale and Link Alliances in Europe. Strategic Management
Journal. 21 (2).

E!Surf Website http://www.eurekasurf.eu/ Accessed on: 15.08.2013

Ekerim, B. (2013). Personal Interview

Elmuti, D., Abou-Zaid, A.S., Jia, H. (2012). Role of Strategic Fit and Resource
Complementarity in Strategic Alliance Effectiveness. Journal of Global Business and
Technology. 16 (8).

Eriksson, P.E. (2008). Achieving Suitable Coopetition in Buyer-Supplier Relationships:
The Case of AstraZeneca. Journal of Business-To-Business Marketing. 15 (4). p.425-454

EUREKA Build 2. Website. http://www.eurekabuild2.eu/ Accessed on: 15.08.2013

EUREKA website http://www.eurekanetwork.org/ Accessed on: 15.08.2013

EUREKA.(2011)
Eurostars
Review.
Online
document.
http://www.eurekanetwork.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=071b5e81-3585-46db8068-995e1984352d&groupId=10137

EUREKA.
(2011).
Annual
Review.
Onine
document.
http://www.eurekanetwork.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=5de379b9-1c28-49b0bbef-f71a49f2de0d&groupId=10137 Accessed on: 15.08.2013

EuroAgri Foodchain Website http://www.euroagri.org/about-us.html
50

Europen Commission. Enterprise and Industry, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/index_en.htm
European
Commission
Enterprise and Industry

European Commission. Enterprise and Industry, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
SME definition of the EU http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figuresanalysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm

EURESCOM Mess@ge Magazine.(2012). (3)
European Institute for Research and
Strategic Studies in Telecommunications accessed via CELTIC PLUS WEBSITE?
Celtic-Plus News

EUROSTARS The EurostarsTM Programme Funding excellence in innovation Eurostars
Application Assessment Guidelines Version 2.0 March 2012

EUROSTARS website http://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/

Galvagno, M., Garaffo, F. (2007). The Promise Of Coopetition As A Field Of Research.
Paper Presented at: EURAM The European Academy Of Management 7th Annual
Conference - “Current Management Thinking: Drawing From Social Sciences
AndHumanities To Address Contemporary Challenges. Paris, May 16-19 2007

Garraffo, F. (2002). Types of Coopetition to Manage Emerging Technologies. EURAM:
Second Annual Conference – Provisional.

Ghosh, A., Morita, H. (2007). Competitior Collaboration and Product Distinctiveness.
University
of
South
Wales.
Available
athttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926488

Gnyawali, D.R., He, J., Madhavan, R.R. Impact of Co-opetition on Firm Competitive
Behaviour: An Emprical Examination. (2006). Journal of Management. 32(4). p.507530.

Gnyawali, D.R., Madhavan R. (2001). Cooperative Networks and Competitive
Dynamics: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective. Academy of Management Review.
Vol. 26. p.431-445.

Gnyawali, D.R., Park B.J. (2009). Co-opetition and Technological Innovation in Small
and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Multilevel Conceptual Model. Journal of Small
Business Management. 47 (3). p.308-330.

Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994). Group versus Group: How Alliance Networks Compete.
Harvard Business Review. 72(4), p. 62-74

Guardo, D.C. and Galvagno, M. The Dynamic Capabilities View of Coopetition: The
Case
of
Intel,
Apple
and
Microsoft
(2007).
Available
at
SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1013561 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1013561
51

Gulati, R. (1999). Network Location and Learning :The Influence of Network Resources
and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.20. p.
397-420

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management
Journal.21(3).pp.203-215

Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within
international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue.
12(2), 83-103.

Hamel, G., Doz Y.L., Prahalad C.K. (1989). Collaborate with Your Competitors - and
Win. Harvard Business Review, vol. 67 (1).

Harbison, J., Pekar, P.Jr. Institutionalising Alliance Skills: Secrets of Repeatable
Success. Strategy and Business, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Second Quarter 1998.

Harrison, JS, MA Hitt, RE Hoskisson and RD Ireland (2001). Resource complementarity
in business combinations: Extending the logic to organizational alliances. Journal of
Management, 27(6), 679–690.

Herzog, T. (2010). Strategic Management of Coopetitive Relationships in CoPS-related
industry‖, in Castaldo, S., Dagnino G.B., Le Roy, F., (eds) Coopetition, winning
strategies for the 21th Century, Elgar: Publishing Northampton, MA.

Hitt, MA, MT Dacin, E Levitas, JL Arregle and A Borza (2000). Partner selection in
emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning
perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 449–467.

Inkpen, A. (2000). A Note on the Dynamics of Learning Alliances: Competition,
Cooperation, and Relative Scope. Strategic Management Journal. 21(7). p.775–779.

IATA. Economics Briefing: The Economic Benefits Generated by Alliances and Joint
Ventures. (2011). Available at: iata.org/economics.

IATA. World Airline Transportation Statistics:WATS. 57th edition (Sample access)
iata.org/publications/pages/wats-passenger-carried.aspx

Iatrou, K., Oretti, M. (2007). The Airline Choices for the Future: From Alliances to
Mergers. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

ITEA 3 Booklet: Seizing the high ground in a time of change.

Jazak, M. (2013). Personal Interview

Johansson, M. (2012). The Balancing Act-Cooperating With Competitors. Marlene
Umeå School Of Business And Economics , Studies in Business Administration Series B
No. 81. Available athttp://umu.diva-portal.org/
52

Johnsen, R.E., Johnsen,T.E. (1999). International Market Development Through
Networks, the Case of the Ayrshire Knitwear Sector. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour Research. 5 (6). p. 297-312.

Kaplan, B. (2013). Personal Interview

Kara, O. (20112) Interview: The Value of Co-opetition and Clusters: Interview with
Okan Kara, Chairman of EUREKA. Celtic News. By Milon Gupta. In EURESCOM
Mess@ge.
Vol.3.
http://www.eurescom.eu/fileadmin/documents/message/Eurescom-
message_03-2012.pdf

Khanna, T, Gulati, R., and N Nohria, N. (1998). The Dynamics of Learning Alliances:
Competition, Cooperation, and Relative Scope. Strategic Management Journal. 19(3).
p.193–210.

Klick, C. (2009). Alliance Value Creation. Vice President Corporate Ofice, Star
Alliance.
http://www.staralliance.com/assets/doc/en/press/media-
library/pdf/aegean_chris.pdf

Korenke, C. (2011) Star Alliance and IBTA. Presentation. Madrid, January 2011.
http://www.staralliance.com/assets/doc/en/press/pressreleases/pdf/2011/SMS_20110120
_IBTA_Korenke_Final_20Jan.pdf

Lado, A.A., Boyd, N.G., Nalón, S.C., (1997). Competition, Co-Operation, and the
Search For Economic Rents: A Syncretic Model. Academy of Management Review. 22
(1). p. 110–141.

Le Roy, F., Guillotreau P. (2010). Successful Strategy For Challengers: Competition or
Coopetition Within Dominant Firms?, in (eds) Castaldo, S., Dagnino G.B., Le Roy, F.,
Coopetition, winning strategies for the 21th Century, Elgar: Publishing Northampton,
MA.

Levy, M., Loebbecke C., Powell P. (2003). SMEs, Co-Opetition and Knowledge
Sharing: The Role of Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems.
12 (1). p. 3-17.

Li, J., Netessine, S. (2011) Partnering with Competitors-An Empirical Analysis of
Airline Alliances and Multimarket Competition. Working Paper. Available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1761211

Liebeskind, J.P. (1996). Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm. Strategic
Management Journal. Vol.17. p.93-107.

Liedtka, J. (1996). Collaboration across lines of business for competitive advantage.
Academy of Management Review. 10(2), p.20-34.
53

Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Brunton, G., Li., W. (2010). Capabilities as a Mediator Linking
Resources, and the International Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms in an Emerging
Economy. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol.41. p.419-436.

Luo, Y. (2005). Towards Coopetition Within a Multinational Enterprise: A Perspective
from Foreign Subsidiaries. Journal of World Business. 40(1). p.71–90.

Luo, Y. (2007). A Coopetition Perspective of Global Competition. Journal of Business.
Vol 42. p.129-144

Macdonald, S., Hellgren, B. (1999) The Interview In International Business Research:
Problems We Would Rather Not Talk About. From Handbook Of Qualitative Research
Methods for International Business, Edited by Rebecca Marschan-Piekkari and
Catherine Welch. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004.

Marketline
(2012)
Turk
Hava
Yollari
Yaririm
Ortakligi.
http://advantage.marketline.com/Product?pid=64DAD87D-A686-428C-8CECB9F4D327BC18

Marketline,
2012.
Global
Airline
Industry.
http://advantage.marketline.com/Product?pid=MLIP0830-0012

Merrifield, D. B. (2007). “Strategic Collaborations-Essence of Survival,” Research
Technology Management 50(2). p.10–14

Merton,R.K., Fiske, M., Kendall, P.L. (1990). The Focused Interview: A manual of
Problems and Procedures. 2nd Edition. New York:Free Press.

Miles, M.B., Huberman A.M (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A sourcebook of New
Methods. Sage Library of Social Research.

Morris, M.H., Kocak, A., Ozer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a Small Business Strategy:
Implications for Performance. Journal Of Small Business Strategy. 18(1). p.35-55.

Myerson, R.B. (1991). Game Theory : Analysis of Conflict: London:Harvard University
Press

Nalebuff B.F., Brandenburger A.M. (1996). Co-Opetition. London: Harper Collins

Narula, R., Hagedorn, J. (1999). Innovation Through Strategic Alliances: Moving
Towards International Partnerships and Contractual Agreements. Technovation. (19). p.
283-294.

Nieto, M.J., Santamaria, L. (2007). The Importance of Diverse Collaborative Networks
for the Novelty of Product Innovation. Technovation.27(6). p.367–377.

of coopetition: experimental evidence, in Dagnino, G.B., Rocco E. (2009), (eds)
Coopetition strategy, theory, experiments and cases. Routledge: London.

OneWorld Website http://www.oneworld.com/member-airlines/overview Accessed on:
02.08.2013.
54

Osarenkhoe, A. (2010). A study of inter-fi rm dynamics between competition and
cooperation – A coopetition strategy. Database Marketing & Customer Strategy
Management .Vol. 17, 3 pp. 201–221

Osland J., Osland A. (2001). International Qualitative Research: An Effective Way to
Generate And Qualify Cross-Cultural Theories. From Toyne B., Martinez Z. L. And
Menger, R.A. International Business Scholarship, Westport, CT: Quorum, p.198-214

Oxford Dictionary of English

Parkhe, A. (2004)
Interviews: A Key Data Source in International Business Research.
in
Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business, R. MarschanPiekkari
and C. Welch (Eds.), Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar

Pogorzelski, P. (2013). Personal Interview

Poppo, L., Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as
substitutes or complements?. Strategic Management Journal. 23(8). p.707-725.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy:Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors: London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Powell, W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and
the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative
Science Quarterly. 41(1) , p. 116-145

Ritala, P., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What's in it for me? Creating and
Appropriating Value in Innovation-Related Coopetition. Technovation. 29 (12). p.819828.

Ritala, P., K Välimäki, K Blomqvist and K Henttonen (2009). Intrafirm coopetition,
knowledge creation and innovativeness. In Dagnino, GB, and E Rocco (Eds.), Coopetition Strategy — Theory, Experiments and Cases, pp. 64–73. New York: Routledge

Ritala, P., Weggman, A. (2011). Coopetition in the Global Book Industry:The Case of
Amazon.com’s
Evolution.
Paper
Presented
at
21st
Nordic
Workshop
on
Interorganizational Research, Vaasa, Finland, August 15-17, 2011.

Sari, A.S. (2013). Personal Interview

Schmlele, A., Sofka, W. (2007). Internationalizing R&D Co-opetition:

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Row: New
York.

Simoni, M., Caiazza, R. (2012). Interlocks Network Structure as Driving Force of
Coopetition Among Italian Firms. Corporate Governance. 12 (3), pp.319 – 336.
55

Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic
Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Academy of Management
Review 32 (1). p.273-292.

SkyTeam Website. http://www.skyteam.com/en/About-us/Our-members/ Accessed on:
02.08.2013.

Star Alliance Rooutemap . http://routemap.staralliance.com/ Accessed on 02/08/2013

Star Alliance Website. http://www.staralliance.com/en/. Accessed on: 02.08.2013.

Star Alliance.(2011). In Focus-An Annual Review Of Star Alliance Products And
Benefits.
http://www.starallianceemployees.com/uploads/media/YEARBOOK-2011-
PAGESsingles_5mb_.pdf

Tether, B.S.(2002). Who Co-Operates for Innovation, and Why: An Emprical Analysis.
Research Polict 31(6), 948.

Todeva, E., Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic Alliances and Models of Collaboration.
Management Decision. 43(1). p. 123-148.

Tomski, P. (2011). The Horizons of Coopetition-the Analysis of Selected Aspects of
Application. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research. Volume 59. pp.131147

Turkish Airlines.(2012) Annual Report.
http://www.turkishairlines.com/download/investor_relations/annual_reports/2012_Faaliy
et_Raporu_en.pdf

Veryzer, R.W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development
process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), p.304–321

Von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between Rivals: Informal Know-How Trading.
Research Policy. 16(6). p.291–302.

Watanabe, C., Lei, S., Ouchi, N. (2009). Fusing Indigenous Technology Development
and Market Learning for Greater Functionality Development: An Empirical Analysis of
the Growth Trajectory of Canon Printers. Technovation. Vol.29. p. 265-283.

Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkari, H., Pentinnen, H., Tahvanainen, M. (2002). Corporate
Elites as Informants in Qualitative International Business Research. International
Business Review Vol.11. pp.611-628

Yami, S. et al. (2010), Coopetition: Winning Strategies for the 21st Century, Edward
Elgar Publishing Inc., USA.

Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. Applied
social Research Methods Series Volume 5 SAGE Publications , United States of
America
56

Youseff, W., Hansen, M. (1994). Consequences of Strategic Alliances Between
International Airlines: The Case of Swissair and SAS. Transportation Research.28A(5).
p.415-431.

Yurttagul, E. (2013). Personal Interview
57
APPENDIX 1- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview With Serhat Sari- Turkish Airlines Scotland
General Manager
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW-IN TURKISH
-Önce kendinizden bahsedin biraz, ne zamandır THY’de çalışıyorsunuz, ne zaman
Edinburgh’a geçtiniz?
-1 Nisan 2012 tarihinden beri Edinburgh’tayım. Önceki görev yerim olan Los Angeles’ta bir
buçuk sene kaldıktan sonra pazarlama müdürü olarak sonrasında buraya İskoçya direktörü
olarak geldim. Edinburgh hatimiz da 16 Temmuz’dan itibaren faal olarak hizmet veriyor.
- THY kendini endüstride/markette nasıl konumlandırıyor? Nasıl bir havayolu şirketi olarak
tanımlıyor kendisini?
-Sayın genel müdürümüzün bu konuda bir tanımlaması var, biz fiyatlarımızda Avrupalı
şirketler gibi rekabetçi, hizmetimizde de Asyalı şirketler gibi üst düzey olacağız’ diye. Yani
kalite ve ucuz fiyatları mix eden bir şirket olarak kendimizi konumlandırıyoruz.
-Peki, önümüzdeki on yıl için THY’nin hedefi nedir?
-Avrupa’nın en büyüğü olmak.
-Star Alliance’tan, Alliance çerçevesinden bahsedebilir miyiz? Türk Hava Yolları’nın Star
Alliance’a katılma nedenleri nelerdir?
-Bunun birçok nedeni var. Öncelikli olarak Star Alliance dünyadaki havayolu alliance’lari
içerisindeki en büyüğü ve en bilineni. Biz bir kere bu havayolu alliance’ina katılarak büyük
bir grubun içine girdik ve bu bir prestij aslında. Çünkü burada Lufthansa gibi, United gibi
dev firmalar var. Biz de kendimizi tabir-i caizse şampiyonlar ligine çıkarttık. Bu bir
bilinirliktir çünkü güven verir insanlara. Star Alliance logosunu gördüğünüz zaman dünyanın
her yerinde insanlar o logoyu tanıyor. “Aa Star Alliance üyeliği var diyorlar”. Onun dışında
alliance’ın içerisindeki havayollarıyla ortaklıklar yapıyoruz. Örnek olarak mesela ortak mil
kullanımı dediğimiz loyalty programlar var. Biliyorsunuz Turkish Airlines’ın da Miles and
Smiles Programı var. Mesela siz Türk Hava Yolları ile uçuş yaptığınız zaman o millerinizi
Alliance’taki başka bir havayolunda kullanabiliyorsunuz. Ya da tam tersi. Mesela Lufthansa
yolcusu biriken millerini Türk Hava Yolları’nda bir uçuşta kullanabiliyor. Böylelikle
yolcular Alliance içindeki havayollarını tercihe bir şekilde alternatif olarak sunuluyor. Bu
önemli bir şey. Onun dışında uçuşlarda da mesela diyelim ki bir yolcu United’la San
Diego’dan İstanbul’a geldi, İstanbul’dan da Türk Hava Yolları ile Bangkok’a devam edecek
diyelim. Ayni Alliance olduğu zaman bu anlaşmaların da onunu çok rahatlatıyor. Yani bizim
58
costshare ve SPA dediğimiz anlaşma türleri var böylece bagajını San Diego’da bağlayıp
Bangkok’ta mesela direk alabiliyor. Yani Alliance bu tur anlaşmaların da onunu acıyor.
Böylelikle dediğim gibi hem içerideki ortak havayollarıyla ilişkilerinizi geliştiriyorsunuz
hem de bütünden faydalanıyorsunuz. Yani genel olarak Star Alliance çıktısının marka
bilinilirliğinden yararlanıyorsunuz. Yolculara dediğim gibi benefitleri ağırlıklı olarak var.
Böylelikle mesela United’ın 30 yıldır ucan bir yolcusu United’la uçmadığı bir parkurda bir
sürü havayolu varken Star Alliance ’la olan üyeyi tercih ediyor. Böylelikle ne yapıyor
lounge’larından faydalanıyor onu da söyleyeyim. Türk Hava yollarının mükemmel bir CIP
Lounge’ı var dünyada belki en iyisi. Star Alliance üyesi havayoluna ait bir yolcu mesela bu
lounge’dan faydalanabiliyor eğer gold ya da silver üyeliği varsa bu tür benefitler var.
-Katılırken herhangi bir endişe var mıydı ya da herhangi bir ‘Acaba?’
- Yo hiçbir zaman olmadı zaten onların çok ciddi fizibilite çalışmaları yapıldı, profit and loss
analizi yapıldı neler kazanılır neler dezavantajlı olabilir diye. Zaten bu yapılan uzun sureli
çalışmaların sonucunda bu konudaki merkez birimlerimiz çok detaylı çalışmalar yaptılar.
Zaten her hâlükârda bizim için avantajlı olacağı öngörülerek girildi ki zaten bunun da
sonuçlarını görüyoruz.
- Peki dezavantajları ne olabilirdi su anda gayet memnun devam ediyor ama dezavantaj ne
olabilirdi?
- (tereddütlü) Mevcut yolcularımızı hani belki başka havayollarına bir nebze kaptırmak gibi
olabilirdi ama bu bütün hava yolları içerisinde böyle bir şey olabilir, bu risk tüm havayolları
için var. Ama böyle bir şey de olmadı, bu sizin vizyonunuzla alakalı. Türk Havayolları zaten
dünyada büyüme üzerine kurulmuş zaten biz Star Alliance’a 2008 yılında girdik 1 Nisan
2008’di yanlış hatırlamıyorsam, zaten THY’nin büyüme hedefini koyduğu sene ki yaklaşık
2003 2004 ten beri buyuyoruz. 2006’da çok büyük bir atılım yaptık ilk büyük atılımı yaptık
bir senede 24 hat açtık ayni anda. Zaten THY dünyanın her yerine uçmak istiyor, büyüme
hedefi var bu konuda çok ambitious. Bu nedenden dolayı zaten konjonktür de bizim lehimize
gitti o sebepten.
-Peki, Star Alliance üyeliğine girdikten sonra diğer havayollarıyla ile evet daha fazla bir
ortaklık oluyor ama paradoksal bir ilişki var rakiplerle işbirliği içerisine giriliyor.
-Win-win pozisyonu diyelim.
59
-Peki halen rakip olarak mı is ortakları olarak görüyorlar sır ketler birbirlerini, rekabet ya da
is ortaklığı daha ağır basıyor diyebilir miyiz?
-Eğer ki siz rakibiniz üzerinden bir benefit elde ediyorsanız bu güzel bir rekabettir. Eğer ki
birbirini yenecek gibi birey olmadığı yok edici bir şey olmadığı surece bu win-win
pozisyonu sonuçta bu herkes için geçerli bir ticari şey. Su an THY’nin tabi ki yani bu illa ki
Star Alliance’ın içinde diye rekabet ortadan kalkmadı, su an biz Lufthansa’yla belki de çok
daha fazla rekabetin içindeyiz. Ama zaten sonuçta Star Alliance’ı oluşturan ve bunu takip
eden birimler ya da yönetimler bunu zaten kendi çıkarlarının aleyhine donduğunu gördüğü
zaman o tavırda adımlar atacak ve çözmeye çalışacaklardır. Ancak su ana kadar böyle bir şey
olmadığı için yani dediğim gibi mesela THY’nin büyümesi aslında Star Alliance’ın diğer
üyeleri için aleyhte bir şey değil, bilhassa lehte bir şey, yani ulaşamadığı noktaları
sunuyorlar. Yani bugün atıyorum Top Portugal mesela, THY üzerinden Moğolistan’a yolcu
verebiliyor. Normalde belki böyle bir imkânı olmayacaktı ama THY de onların seçeneklerini
arttırıyor bu da onların bilet satışlarına yansıyor. Yani o yüzden su an Alliance’da böyle bir
durum yok zaten dediğim gibi United, Lufthansa ve THY su an hakikatten on planda yani şu
an öyle dediğiniz gibi bir çıkar çatışması diyelim su an için öyle bir şey yok herkesin
kazandığı bir durum şu anda.
- Peki bir havayolu şirketinin bir alliance’a girdiğinde diğerlerinden daha fazla avantaja
sahip olabilmesi için hangi özelliklere sahip olması gerekir ?
-Aslında bu alliance’a üye olun ya da olmayın yani şirketin benefitleri olması için ya da daha
fazla avantaj sağlaması için genel kabul gören bazı özelliklerin olması lazım. Siz çok
connection veriyorsanız çok yere uçuyorsanız – iyi servis verebiliyorsanız kaliteli ve bunu
uygun fiyatta verebiliyorsanız zaten ister Star Alliance’da olun ister olmayın avantajlı
durumdasınız. Yani bu bence alliance içinde olup olmamaktan bağımsız bir durum. Yani
THY bugün rakiplerine göre her gecen gün daha avantajlı duruma geçiyor. Bugün THY
alliance’dan çıksa da belki bu avantajları koruyacaktır. Mesela isim vermeyeyim uygun
olmaz ama mesela körfez havayollarından biri herhangi bir Alliance içinde değil tek başına
gidiyor ve su an havacılıkta dense ki top 5, bir tanesi o. Ama herhangi bir alliance üyesi
değil. Ama nasıl yapıyor bunu? Çok iyi uçaklarla harika bir servisle falan.
Yani havacılık da diğer sektörlerdeki gibi, avantajlı olmak ya da dezavantajlı olmak
tamamen sizin yaptıklarınızla ilgili rakiplerinizden çok.
-peki THY 200’den fazla destinasyonla uçuyor su anda..
-226 oldu.
60
-Bunlardan kaçı Star Alliance ile link oluyor, kaçı sadece direk THY tarafından gidiyordur?
- Çok teknik bir soru bu. Binlerce origin destination var. Mesela biz Amerika’da Boston’a
uçmuyoruz. Boston-Beyrut diyelim. Simdi bizi kullanabilmeleri için dediğim gibi bağlantı
veriyor olması lazım. Mesela Boston’dan İstanbul için inen uçağın Beyrut’a inebiliyor
olması lazım.
Su konuda çok netim, THY çok çok iyi bağlantılar veriyor o yüzden yüzlerce vardır onu
söyleyebilirim. Tam rakam atıyorum 1872 gibi bir şeyi ilgili birimden almanız lazım.
-Bir havayolu şirketi bir alliance’a katılmayı reddetse neden reddetmiş olabilir katılmayı
istememesinin nedeni ne olabilir mesela?
- Şimdi karşılıklı sonuçta ortak uçuşlar oluyor. Ve bir havayolu diğer havayolunun
yolcularını çekebilir, simdi sonuçta siz aslında nasıl şöyleyim size tam bir serbestleşme
oluyor yani herkes birbirinin uçuşlarında uçabiliyor, belli bir sure sonra mesela bir
havayolunun sadık müşterileri o havayolundan daha iyi bir havayolu olacağını
keşfedebiliyorlar ve böylelikle müşteri kaybı olabilir birbirlerine. Star alliance’a gelirsek tek
kayıp bu olabilir mesela söyle de bir şey; sizin bir hedefiniz vardır, nedir Asya’da
büyümektir. Ve bir Alliance’a üye olurken orada güçlü olan networku güçlü olan bir
Alliance a girerseniz bu sizin avantajınız olur doğal olarak. Diyelim ki benim hedeflediğim
bölgede güçlü olan taşıyıcılar bir alliance’ın içinde yoksa sonuçta One World de bir Alliance
, ben Star alliance’ı reddedebilirim derim ki benim hedefim vizyonum buralarda büyümek ve
buralarda büyümem için bu havayolları üzerinden buyurum ve bu Alliance benim için
avantajlı değil.
Yani insanlar daha çok uçmadıkları noktalarda networku güçlü olan havayollarıyla link
kurmak istiyorlar. Ki oralara bilet satabilsinler. O yüzden bu bence en büyük nedenlerden
biri yolcu kaybı ve vizonuna uyuşmaması.
-Ya da benim networkum en kuvvetli networktur ben bu alliancea girdiğimde diğerleri
benden daha fazla benefit edecektir, ben 3 kazaniyorsam onlar ben 3 destinasyon arttırırken
onlar 7 ya da 8 arttiriyor diyelim , bu yönde endışeler oluyor mu>
-Bu manteliteyle pazardaki hiçbir büyüğün girmemesi lazım, büyük de daha fazla büyümek
için de girebilir. Büyük kendine güveniyordur servisi iyidir ücretleri iyidir öbürlerinden pay
da alabilir bu çift taraflıdır.
-Her zaman win-win diyorsunuz yani?
-Kesinlikle her zaman win-win. Aksi takdirde kimse girmezdi. Alliance’larda çok küçük
havayolları da var çok büyük havayolları da var.
61
-Genelde bu alyanslara girmek için havayolları seçiliyor mu yoksa seçiliyor mu seçiyor mu?
-Genelde seçiliyor havayolu şirketleri alliancelar tarafında. Genelde havayolları başvuruda
bulunuyor, Star Alliance da iste şartlara bakiyor: havayolunun sabıkası büyük mü - güvenlik
anlamında kaza kırımları vs. var, Star Alliance bunu reddeder. Havayolunun repütasyonu,
networku, hepsi dikkate alınıyor sonuçta bu Star Alliance’ın ilgili birimleri değerlendiriyor
ve sonrasında bir karar veriyorlar. Yani genelde Star Alliance teklif götürmez, tam tersi
havayolları alliancelara girmek için caba gösterirler.
TRANSLATION to ENGLISH
-
First of all, can you talk about yourself a bit: How long you’ve been working for
Turkish Airlines, when did you come to Edinburgh?
-
I am in Edinburgh since the 1st of April, 2013. After staying in LA as the marketing
director for 1,5 years, I came here as the Scotland Director. And Edinburgh line is on
service since the 16th of July, 2013.
-
How does Turkish Airlines define and position itself in the airline industry?
-
Our Dear Mr General Manager has a definition for this: We will be competitive with
our prices like European Companies, and will be providing high quality service like
Asian Companies. So THY positions itself as a company mixes quality with low
prices.
-
What is the objective of Turkish Airlines for the next decade?
-
Becoming the biggest airline of Europe.
-
Can you talk about Star Alliance and the alliance borders? What are the motivations
of Turkish Airlines to join Star Alliance?
-
There are many reasons to join Star Alliance. First of all, STAR ALLIANCE is the
most known and the biggest airline alliance. So firstly, we entered into a very big
group by joining this airline alliance and actually it is a matter of prestige. Because
this alliance has huge airline companies such as Lufthansa and the United. So in a
manner of speaking we pushed ourself upwards to the Champions League. It is a
62
matter of being known as people recognize the Star Alliance logo all around the
world. They say “oh this airline has the star alliance membership”. Addition to that,
we have different forms of collaborations with the airlines within the alliance. There
are loyalty programs called as common mile use. As you know Turkish Airlines has
such a loyalty program called Miles&Smiles. Once you fly with Turkish Airlines,
you can use the miles you earned with Turkish Airlines at your another flight with
any airline company within the alliance. Alternatively, vice versa. For instance, a
Lufthansa passenger can use his/her miles. This leads passengers to choose the
airlines within the alliance. This is something important.
-
Addition to this, lets assume that a passenger came to Istanbul from San Diego via
United, and will continue his/her journey TO Bangkok via Turkish Airlines. As
those airlines are from the same alliance, it is easier to have some agreements such
as cost share and SPA, which makes that passenger take his/her luggage directly
from Bangkok. Alliances makes those agreements easier and accelerates the
agreement procedure.
-
So as I mentioned before, you both improve your relationships with other airlines
and you benefit from the “whole”. I mean you generally you benefit from the famous
and prestigious brand image of the Star Alliance output.
-
As I mentioned before, the majority of the benefits are towards the passengers. That
is why, a loyal passenger of United for 30 years, for instance, for a destination where
United does not fly to, chooses an airline within the STAR ALLIANCE instead of
loads of other options. So he/she can benefit from the lounges of star alliance
member airlines, for instance. TA has a fantastic CIP Lounge, probably the best one
in the world. Any passenger from an airline from the SA can benefit from TA’s
lounge if she/he holds a gold or silver membership.
-
Dir TA carry any worries or doubts on joining the STAR ALLIANCE ?
-
No, that never happened. As intense feasibility studies and profit/loss analysis took
place in order to see what the benefits and the advantages could be. Our departments
at the headquarter had intense and detailed research about the manner. TA joined the
SA by thinking that it would be extremely beneficious, as we experience its results
today.
-
What any possible disadvantage could be?
63
-
(hesitates during the answer, thinks a bit) We might lose our current passengers to
the other airlines but this is a risk relevant for any airline company joining the
alliance. But such thing never happened. This is about the vision of the company.
TA is a company already founded towards the aim of the growth, we are growing
significantly since 2003 -2004 and we joined the STAR ALLIANCE at 2008, it was
1st of April on 2008 if i don’t remember wrong. In 2006 we made the first big growth
step by opening 24 destinations simultaneously. TA aims to fly everywhere in the
world, it has growth targets where it is extremely ambitious about this manner.
That’s why the conjuncture went towards our favour.
-
After the Star Alliance membership you say you had more collaborative
relationships with the other airlines, however it is a paradoxal relationship as the
competitors fall into a collaborative relationship.
-
Lets name it as win-win position.
-
Do these airlines still perceive as competitors, or can we say that either competition
or collaboration is more dominant in this relationship frame?
-
If you gain benefit from your competitor, this is a good competition. It is a win-win
position as long as there is no destroying threat, or one side to defeat the other one.
And this is relevant for everyone within this relationship.
Of course STAR
ALLIANCE did not lead the competition to disappear, indeed we for instance in
competition with Lufthansa more than ever before. Indeed, if any danger for any part
of the alliance takes place, both the STAR ALLIANCE and the departments who
run the relations with SA will make steps towards solving the issue.
However, such things never took place. The growth of TA, for instance, is not a
disadvantage, indeed a beneficial thing for the other alliance member airlines, as the
airlines within the alliance provide each other links to the destinations they do not
fly. For instance, Top Portugal can ‘give passengers’ to Mongolia via TA. Normally
it could not have such opportunity without the alliance. So TA’s growth means the
increased options in terms of destinations for the other airlines within the alliance,
which in turn reflects on their ticket sales. United, Lufthansa and TA are the pretty
active ones and as I mentioned before, it is a statement that everyone is better off, so
theres no conflict of interest right now.
64
-
What characteristics/features should an airline company possess in order to be more
advantageous compared to the other airlines within an alliance?
-
Regardless of being a member of an alliance, there are some generally accepted
significant features that an airline should have, in order to possess more benefits and
advantages. You already keep a significant advantage if you give many connectionsif you fly to many destinations, if you can provide high quality service and if you
can give it to good price- regardless of you are a member of an alliance or not. So I
think this is independent from being a member of an alliance or not. Today TA
becomes in a more advantageous position every single day. It might even keep this
position even if it leaves the alliance. For instance, a Gulf area airline company-I
wont give the name as that would be inappropriate- is not associated with any of the
airline alliances, but it is one of the top 5 airlines of the world. How does it succeed
it? With very good planes and with very good service, etc.
To conclude, as in every other industry, success in airline industry also depends on
what you do, rather than what your competitors do.
-TA currently flies over 200 destinations…
- its been 226.
-
How many of these destionations are via TA purely and how many of them via the
link with a SA member?
-
Its been a too technical question. There are thousands of origin-destinations. But I
cannot say an exact number. For instance, we don’t fly to Boston in America, lets
say the destination would be Boston-Beirut. In order to use TA, we have to be giving
a link to the destination. The flight came from Boston to Istanbul should be link-able
to Beirut.
-
However I am so clear about that TA gives so many good links so I can say there are
hundreds of them.
-
If an airline company refuses joining an alliance, what might the reason be?
-
There are common flights across each other, and an airline can attract the passengers
of another airline. There is a complete free atmosphere , I mean everone can fly with
everyone’s flight. This is how a loyal customer of an airline might discover that
there is a better airline which leads missing the customer to another airline. This
might be the only loss in the SA.
65
-
Another reason is about your vision. If you target growth in Asia, for instance, you
prefer an alliance where it has airlines have strong networks in Asia. If the carriers
who are active in the area that I want to grow in are not within an alliance,
OneWorld is another alliance for instance, I might reject Star Alliance , as it would
not be advantegous for me.
-
What I mean is airlines want to link with the airlines who has strong networks
towards the points that they do not fly, so that they can sell tickets towards these
destinations. So I think the biggest reasons of not joining an alliance would be the
worry of losing passengers and the network of the member airlines not to fit with the
vision of the airline company.
-
Or is it possible to have a worry towards other airlines benefit more than my
company does in the alliance? Lets say I can increase my destinations by 3 but
others do by 7, 8?
-
With this logic none of the big airline companies should have joined to any alliances.
The big airlines also might enter into alliances with the growth targets. The big one
has confidence towards itself with its good service and prices, so it might take share
from the others (via new destinations). So it is a two-sided relationship.
-
So you say it is always a win-win relationship.
-
Definitely, always win-win. Otherwise no one would have joined the alliances.
There are noth small and big airlines within alliances.
-
Do airlines choose the alliances or do the alliances choose the airlines to join ?
-
In general airline companies are chosen by the alliances. Airline companies apply for
joining, and SA looks for the criterias: Are there bad records of the airline (in terms
of accidents) , the safety conditions are important. If the airline has accident history,
the SA would reject the application. Reputation of the airline, its network, all of
them are considered and assessed by the relative departments of SA and decision is
made accordingly.
-
So SA does not offer to the airlines, the airlines show effort to join SA.
66
APPENDIX 2- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview with Fatma Basaran Çiçek, Turkish Airlines
Edinburgh-Regional Commercial Manager- Turkish Airlines Edinburgh Directorate
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW-IN TURKISH
THY PAZARDA KENDİNİ NASIL TARİF EDER
THY giderek büyüyen networkunu genişleten her gecen gün yeni destinasyon ekleyen bir
havayolu bu nedenle marketteki payımız küçükten büyüğe sürekli artmakta ve yeni
destinasyonlar nedeniyle yeni pazarlar sayesinde tabi gelir ve müşteri potansiyelimiz ve
çalışmakta olduğumuz acente tipleri değişmekte ve artmakta. Ki bu nedenle pazardaki
pozisyonumuzu çok iyi buluyorum ve giderek gelişmekte olduğunu düşünüyorum.
Hedeflerimiz yüksek, sene sonunda 250 destinasyona uçmayı hedefliyoruz. Bu her açıdan
bizim için önemli çünkü dediğim gibi her yeni destinasyon bize yeni Pazar getiriyor. Eğlence
pazarı ayrı, business pazarı ayrı, ya da bunların ikisinin ortak olduğu pazarlar ayrı. Bunların
üzerinde uzmanlaşmış olan acenteler da var bu acentalara her gittiğimizde yeni
destinasyonumuzla gittiğimizde regional olarak UK’de buradan çıkış noktalarımız da çok
fazla olduğundan daha çok Kabul görüyor ve daha çok bizimle çalışmak istiyorlar, daha çok
satıyorlar ve bu yüzden bu Pazar payımızın büyümesi ve konumu hakkında mutluyuz,
Brand olarak kendimizi nasıl tarif ederiz
Modern demek istiyorum, gelişmekte, sürekli müşteri ilişkilerine odaklanan, özellikle
müşteri ilişkilerinde bagaj kayıplarına ve müşteri memnuniyetine odaklanmış bir şirket
olarak tanımlayabiliriz. Su anda tabii ki eksiklerimiz var ama sürekli bunları gidermek için
çalışıyoruz bu nedenle iyi bir konumda olduğumuzu ve insanların hakkımızda iyi
düşündüklerini düşünüyorum.
Next decade için mission
Müşteri memnuniyetini sağlayarak büyümek olduğunu düşünüyorum çünkü bu bir hizmet
sektörü. Çünkü ne kadar urun de satsanız müşteri memnuniyetini sağlayamadıktan sonra
hiçbir urunun kıymeti yok bana kalırsa. O yüzden müşteri memnuniyetini sağlayarak bilinçli
büyümek olduğunu düşünüyorum.
Star Alliance ile ilgini vereceğim cevaplar havada kalabilir, daha bu konuda uzmanlaşmış
birinden ki sana Serhat Bey bu konuda yardımcı olacak,
Peki, Star Alliance’in uyguladığı bazı müşteri memnuniyeti için kriterler var mı ya da Star
Alliancea üye olmak müşteri memnuniyetini arttırdı mı bir etkisi oldu mu?
67
Tabi ki. Star Alliance in merkezi Londra’da. Star Alliance’in her ay ya da belirli dönemlerde
toplantıları olur, bütün havayollarını bir arada toplayıp kendi ürünlerini gelişimlerini ya da
müşteri ilişkileri olsun bütün Star Alliance üyelerini topladığı toplantılar yapıyor ve bunlara
katılıyoruz. Ben bir defa katildim buna, bir urunun tanıtımı (Star Alliance’ın) ve
değişikliklerini. AMA dediğim gibi Star Alliance hem sürekli ürünlerini yeniliyor hem de
sürekli havayollarını bir araya getirerek havayollarını bilgilendiriyor bilgileri tazeliyor.
Evet, Star Alliance’da olmamızın çok büyük faydaları var, zararlı olduğunu düşünmüyorum
çünkü her zaman birlikten kuvvet doğacağını düşünüyorum. Yararları çok çünkü Star
Alliance bilinen bir herkes Star Alliance biliyor yolcusuna kadar, Star Alliance’I duyduğu
zaman kendini güvende hissediyor.
( kendi notum: dolayısıyla birbirlerini iyi olmaya zorlarlar çünkü sen yolcunu emanet
ediyorsun. Rakibin iyi olsun iyi is yapsın diye uğraşıyorsun resmen)
Yolcu diyor ki eğer Star Alliance üyesiyse bu doğrudur, bunu tercih ederim diyor. Ya da
uçak iptal olsa bile alternatifim var diye düşünüyor ki doğru hemen yolcularımızı diğer Star
Alliance üyesi havayollarıyla uçurabiliyoruz. Bizim için faydaları çok çok fazla ürünleri
farklılık gösteriyor o nedenle bir kotu bir tarafının olduğunu düşünmüyorum imaj olarak da
bize katisinin olduğunu düşünüyorum herhangi bir risk benim bildiğim kadarıyla yok.
Markamız acısından da bir risk oluşturmuyor.
Yani aslında bir tur akreditasyon gibi değil mi, bir kalite Standard belgesi gibi Star Alliance
bir yandan da, değil mi?
Tabi onun kalite standardını tutturmak zorundasın ki biz onun içindeki bir suru
havayolundan daha yüksek kalitedeyiz. Su anda biz Avrupa’nın dört yıldızlı tek
havayoluyuz. Beş yıldızlı olmasına çalışıyoruz. Zaten oradaki birçok havayolundan daha iyi
standartlarımız ama yine de onların getirdiği standardizasyon sayesinde kendimizi o anlamda
o düzeye tasdik geçmişten beri su an çok üstündeyiz onların taleplerinin ama yine de onların
belli bir Standard olması ve diğer havayollarının da bu Standard uyum sağlaması iyi birse
çünkü biz yolcularımızı bazen bu havayollarına yönlendiriyoruz ya da code share
ucuzlarımız oluyor o nedenle bize herhangi bir faydası olmayan tarafını görmüyorum.
Peki bu Star Alliance’ta üründen kastettiğiniz ne? az önce Star Alliance’in ürünleri
demiştiniz.
Mesela around world tour diye bir urunu var. Yani Star Alliance’in web sitesinden de girip
görebilirsin. Turk Hava yolları, Lufthansa gibi birkaç Star Alliance üyesi havayolunu
kullanarak tüm dünyayı farklı iyi bir ücretten dolaşabiliyorsunuz. Mesela farkli urunleri de
68
var. Daha doğrusu yolcuların birkaç airline kullanarak yaptığı uçuşlarda genellikle Star
Alliance devreye giriyor bu tarz ürünleri var ki biz bunlara dahil oluyoruz
Peki, bu ürünlere dahil olmak için bir rekabet var mıdır? Diğer havayolları arasında
havayolları bir üründe yer almak için rekabet ediyorlar mı?
Bireysel olarak her zaman birbirimizle rekabet halindeyiz ama Star Alliance üyesi olarak
birbirimizle rekabet halinde değiliz. Çünkü Star Alliance birbirimize desteğimiz var bizim
uçmadığımız noktaya diğeri uçuyor ya da diğerinin uçmadığı noktaya biz götürüyoruz, her
iki taraf için de iyi oluyor. O yüzden o tarafta birse yok ama ayni yere iki ayrı havayolu
uçuyorsa o zaman tabi ki bir rekabet var. Ama dediğim gibi bu her zaman söz konusu değil.
Bizim uçamadığı yerlere-ki artık çok azaldı- bizim için hala faydalı. O yüzden hala bir riski
ya da bir eksisi olduğunu düşünmüyorum. Ama diğer havayollarından her zaman daha iyi
servis ve daha iyi ücret vermeye çalışıyoruz. Bunları sen de biliyorsun çalışmaları yaparak
değerlendirme altında sürekli.
Onun haricinde neden airline alliance’a girmek istemez?
Bence alliance onu almıyordur çünkü standartları sağlayamamıştır. Yani havayolundan
ziyade Star Alliance ’in onu Kabul etmemesi daha muhtemel.
THY’nin su anda Star Alliance dışında, isim vermeyerek, Star Alliance olmasa onun dışında
katılmayı istemeyeceği bir alliance olabilir mi? diyelim ki X Alliance’indan Türk hava
yollarına teklif geldi, THY de hayır teşekkürler biz tercih etmiyoruz dedi.
Star Alliance’dan daha büyük olanı yok. Diğer alliance’lar da var ama STAR ALLIANCE
’dan daha kapsamlı benefiti daha fazla olan yok. Çünkü ne kadar çok iyi havayolu varsa o
allianceda, biz bunlara yolcularımızı emanet ediyoruz. Bundan daha iyi bir alliance olsa
belki genel müdürlük tarafından değerlendirilir ama dediğim gibi böyle bir opsiyon yok.
Cok teşekkür ederim Fatma Hanim.
How does Turkish airlines define itself in the global market?
69
TA is an airline company which grows day by day widens its network by adding new
destinations every single day that’s why our share in the market is constantly increasing and
with the effect oft he new destinations and markets so does our income and consumer
potential and the agency types that we work with change and increase. That’s why I find our
position within the market very well and I think it is improving constantly. Our targets are
high, we target to fly to 250 destination by the end oft he year. It is important for every
single aspect because as I said before every destination brings us new market like
entertainment markets or business markets or both oft hem. The more we increase our
destinations the more agencies show demand to us because they sell more with our increased
destinations that’s why we are happy about the increase in the market share and the position
oft he company.
How do we define ourselves as a brand?
I want to say modern, improving, always focusing on customer relationships especially
luggage losses. Of course we have parts to improve but we are constantly improving
ourselves that’s why I think that we are in a good position and people have good ideas about
us.
What is the mission of Turkish Airlines of the next decade?
I think it is growing by providing customer satisfaction because we are in the service sector.
I think that the products have no value if you cannot provide customer satisfaction.
Does Star Alliance has criteria for customer satisfaction and did the Star Alliance
membership have any impact on the customer satisfaction?
Yes, of course. Star Alliance constantly refreshes its products and works for customer
satisfaction and keeps all airlines up to date with the meetings it conducts at their HQ in
London.
70
What are the advantages and disadvantages of joining Star Alliance?
I think we don’t have any disadvantages but many advantages. Every passenger knows Star
Alliances and feels comfortable with it. The passenger thinks that Star Alliance member
airlines are the right choice because he / she knows that he / she has an alternative even if the
flight is cancelled. In such cases of flight cancellation we can directly channel our passenger
to other member airlines. It has many benefits for us because Star Alliance has many
different products. I also think that it has a big contribution to the brand image. As far as I
know it doesn’t carry any risk and neither for our brand.
So can we say that being member of Star Alliance is like holding a quality standardization
document or a kind of accreditation?
Yes of course. The airlines have to keep the quality standards that Star Alliance sets and we
are already in a higher quality level than many member airlines. We are currently the only
four star airline of Europe and working for having five stars. Our standards are way better
than many member airlines but this level shift is gained through the standardization that Star
Alliance provided in the beginning. These standard requirements are very important because
sometimes we channel our passenger to those member airlines or we have code share flights
with member airlines. To conclude I don’t see any non-beneficial part.
You just mentioned Star Alliance products. What did you mean by Star Alliance products?
For instance it has a product called “Around world tour”. The passengers can travel the
entire world by using a few Star Alliance members such as TA and Lufthansa with a very
good price. It has many different products. In general Star Alliance intervenes hen
passengers are flying with multiple member airlines.
Is there a Co-opetition involved in these products? Do member airlines compete to take place
in these products?
71
As individual airlines we always compete with each other but as Star Alliance members we
do not. Because we support each other within Star Alliance because another member airline
flies to the destination we do not fly to or vice versa. So it is a winning situation for both
sides. There is no competition if only one airline is flying into one destination but
competition takes place if there are two airlines flying to the same destination. We always
carry endeavor of providing better service and better prices as you also know.
Why would an airline prefer not to join an alliance?
It is more probable that the alliance does not accept this airline because it couldn’t provide
the required standards.
Let’s assume that alliance X proposed TA to join and TA rejected this offer. What could be
the reason?
There are also other airline alliances but Star Alliance is the biggest and most beneficial one.
If there were a better alliance maybe the HQ would consider changing but as I said before
there is not such an option.
APENDIX 3- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview with Onur Alpan-Turkish Airlines, Internatonal
Relations and Agreements Manager; and Banu Ekerim- Turkish Airlines –International
Alliances Specialist
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW: IN TURKISH
Ben öncelikle sizleri tanımak isterim, ne zamandır bu pozisyonda çalışıyorsunuz, THY’de ne
zamandır varsınız?
Banu: THY’ye 98 yılında yer işletmede başladım üniversite öğrenicisiyken. Daha sonra yer
işletmenin başka bir bolumu olan X anlaşmalarda çalıştım. 2008 Ağustos’tan beri de buradayım.
Uluslararası ilişkiler ve anlaşmalarda hem ticari anlaşmalar hem de ittifaklar bolumunu takip
edip koordinasyonu sağlıyoruz. İttifaklardan kasıt tabi ki SA tabi ki bir de üyesi olduğumuz
uluslararası organizasyonlar var IATA gibi bu ve benzeri kuruluşlarla ilgili günlük operasyonel
takip ve üst düzey raporlama olarak özetleyeceğimiz isi yapmaya çalışıyorum.
72
Onur: Ben 2000’de başladım THY’de çeşitli bölümlerden sonra 2003 sonunda bu bolüme
geçtim. O tarihten bu yanda da Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Anlaşmalardayım. Neler yapıyoruz
Uluslararası İlişkiler anlaşmalarda? Öncelikle iki ana konumuz var: Havayollarıyla olan ilişkiler
ve devletlerarası ilişkiler. Eğer THY’ni TC olarak görürsek burası dışişleri bakanlığı gibi çalışan
bir bolum. Bir havayolunun bir ülkeden başka bir ülkeye uçabilmesi için öncelikli olarak
devletlerin kendi aralarında bir anlaşma imzalaması gerekiyor. Bu anlaşmaya istinaden
havayolları seferler gerçekleştirebiliyorlar. Bu anlaşmaya hava ulaştırma anlaşması diyorlar ve
ulaştırma bakanlığına bağlı sivil havacılık genel müdürlükleri bu anlaşmaları imzalıyorlar. Bu
anlaşmalar tabi ki direk olarak tüm havayollarını etkileyen anlaşmalar olduğu için haftada kaç
sefer uçacağız nereden nereye uçacağız hangi uçak tipiyle uçacağız koltuk kısıtlaması olacak mı
olmayacak mı direk havayollarını ilgilendirdiği için biz de bayrak taşıyıcı havayolu olarak bu
toplantılara katılıyoruz birinci yaptığımız is bu. İkincisi havayolları nezdinde olan ilişkiler ticari
anlaşmalar uluslararası havayolları organizasyonları iste bunların bir kısmi IATA gibi European
Airline Association, Arap Carrier Organization, Güney Amerika Havayolları Birliği gibi
uluslararası havacılık organizasyonları, kimisi de daha ticari: yani SA gibi birlikler.
Biz 1 Nisan 2008’de Star Alliance’a girdik. Bunun öncesinde çok ciddi bir karar verme sureci
ve karar verildikten sonra da Star’a girebilmek için bir uğraş vardı. Aynen AB ve TR arasında
üyelik müzakere sureci gibi, Star Alliance’la Türkiye arasında böyle bir müzakere sureci geçti.
Buna benzer (küçük ve kalın bir kitap gösteriyor) bir minimum şartlar kitapçığımız var, listesi
var, bu şartları THY ya da herhangi bir aday havayolu yerine getirmeden SA’a üye olamıyor.
BANU: Integration Process denen bir yıldan az olmamak üzere bir süreç geçiriyor.
Onur: Biz müdürlük olarak bu entegrasyon surecinin THY’deki koordinasyonu yaptık. Çok
çeşitli şartlar var, örnek veriyorum business class yolcunun bagaj etiketine onun bagajını ayırt
edebilmek için renkli bir etiket takmaktan tutun da
Banu: belirli raporlamaların cost share satış raporlarına dair bir takım verilerin belirli
periyotlarda starla paylaşılmasına kadar.
-peki, bu müzakere sureci ne kadar surdu THY’de?
Onur: Bir buçuk sene kadar surdu, 2006 sonunda başladı, bir buçuk iki seneye yakın bir süreç.
Ve biz 8 üye olduk 3 farklı üyelik tipi var, bunların aidatları ve söz hakları farklı. Galaksilerden
alınan üç takım yıldızından alıyor bu guruplar isimlerini: olux, castor ve vasat. Olux en yüksek
üyelik: üyelik aidatının en yüksek olduğu ama ona göre de söz hakkinin en fazla olduğu ve
sorumlulukların çok yüksek olduğu bir üyelik tipi
Banu: İttifaka yon veren bir üyelik tipi seklinde özetleyebiliriz.
73
Onur: THY bu üyelik tipinde. Polux üyeyiz biz. Bütün toplantılara 100% katilim gerekiyor,
minimum şartları en az %70 alanında yerine getirmek gerekiyor, bu şartları yerine getirme
oranınız %70 altına düşerse, starın size bir alt üyelik tipine düşürüp bir üst üyelik tipindeki
aidata devam ettirme seklinde yaptırımı var. Tabi ki bir üst üyelik tipinin aidatı önemli değil
önemli olan burada havayolunun prestiji. Shame and blame olayı var. Çok fazla Vassat
havayolu yok, genellikle böyle büyük havayollarının alt kuruluşları ya da yüzde yüzüne sahip
olduğu küçük havayolları örnek Lufthansa’nın yüzde yüzüne sahip olduğu , SN Brussels,
Avusturya Havayolları gibi havayolları en alt gurubunda çünkü onların sahibi olduğu Lufthansa
her hâlükârda onların yerine karar verip konuştuğu için o havayollarının herhangi bir söz hakki
yok. Yani şeye benzettim bunu , mandacılık sisteminde manda altında hayatlarına devam eden
ülkeler gibi.
Banu: bu arada is tanımında bir şey atladık
Müdürlük olarak yaptığımız personelin gerek görev gerek tatil seyahatlerinde yabancı
havayollarından ücretsiz ya da indirimli bilet almasını sağlayan ticari anlaşmalarımız var bunları
yapıyoruz,
sistemlerin
implement
etmesi
ve
internete
koyduğumuz
sistem
var,
…………………..
-
Peki, bu star alliancea katılırken bir endişesi var mıydı herhangi bir negatif kısmı bir hesitationu
var mıydı?
-
Banu: öngörülen maliyeti çok belli zaten anlaşmalarda yazan, bunun dışında bir havayolu için
ittifaka katılmanın en önemli amacı costlari düşürmek zaten ve bunu büyük ölçüde de star
alliance ya da başka alliancelarda bi contribution sana bir destek bir katilim katkı bir added
value sağlayacağını sana teyit ediyor ve bunu da büyük ölçüde yerine getirmiş oluyor.
Bizim THY olarak SA’a girmemizdeki en önemli etkenlerden birisi marka bilinirliğini
arttilirmasiydi ki bunu büyük ölçüde sağladık ve bunu hala çok iyi bir şekilde kullanmaya
devam ediyoruz star markasını kesinlikle yan amaçlarımız da vardı cost cutting gibi –cost
cutting çok önemli bir şey, network effect sales effect dediğimiz, zaten ittifakların vadettiği
ürünlerden ve hizmetlerden kaynaklanan gelirler diyelim bunlar sağlanıyor bir şekilde.
ONUR: örnek verelim mesela bütün hava yolları biraya gelerek.. Simdi uçak çok enteresan bir
makine alet bir araç ne diyorsak, siz Boeing’den, Airbus’tan sadece uçağın gövdesini
alıyorsunuz. Motorlarını başka bir firmadan alıyorsunuz: Rolls Royce’dan alıyorsunuz, General
Elektric ya da başka bir firmadan; koltuklarını başka bir yerden alıyorsunuz lastiklerini başka
bir yerden alıyorsunuz.
Banu: Yapabiliyorsanız kendiniz yapıyorsunuz,
Onur: Sımdı star alliance da bunu soyluyor: biz havayolu havayolu olarak bu koltuk
üreticileriyle ayrı ayrı pazarlıklar yapıyoruz. Onun yerine gelin birleşelim bin koltuk yerine
74
10000 kolduk 50000 koltuk alalım daha çok pazarlık gücümüz olsun ya da bu koltuğu kendimiz
üretelim. Star Alliance bir proje başlattı, Economy Seat projesi altında kendi koltuğunu kendisi
üretti. Ve bazı havayolları –bu zorunlu bir uygulama değildi-isteyen star üyesi havayolları da bu
starın teşvikiyle üretilen koltuklarını uçaklarında kullanmaya başladılar.
-THY dâhil oldu mu buna?
THY dahil olmadı çünkü SA’in ürettiği koltuk bizim standartlarımızın altında bir koltuktu. Biz
daha farklı bir koltuk modeli tercih ediyoruz, yolculara maksimum rahatlık sağlayacak. Her
koltukta ekran olacak falan, bizim standartlarımız daha farklıydı: biz kendi koltuğumuzu
kendimiz üretmeye başladık, birim maliyetlerimiz çok daha düşük oldu başka bir firmayla joint
venture kuruldu. Ve kendi koltuğumuzu kendimiz üretiyoruz ama bu sadece bir örnek bunun
yansıra akaryakıtta, bazı ikram malzemelerinde Star’ın bir araya getirerek oluşturduğu bazı
ihaleler alımlar var burada THY da bu grubun içinde yer alıp zaman zaman ciddi cost saving
elde edebiliyor.
Banu: Onur Bey’in bahsettiği gibi uçağı tek bir şey olarak düşünmemek lazım onunla ilgili
hizmetleri de düşünmeniz lazım yani tek başına uçağı düşünmek yeterli olmuyor ayni zamanda
yer hizmetleri ikram hizmetleri uçuş hizmetleri terminal ona bağlı hizmetlerin bütününe. Bir
yolcuya starın taahhüt ettiği seamless travel yani kesintisiz hizmeti sağlamak için birçok alanda
gerekiyorsa işbirliği yapmak, bu alanda ortak yatırımlar yapmak ve bu sayede üyelere belli
kazanımlar sağlamak. Tabi ki ortak çıkarlar altında toplanan ve herkes için kazanım
sağladığınızda siz ittifakın bütünü içinde ortak bir değer yaratmış oluyorsunuz. Zaten ittifakların
en önemli amaçlarından bir tanesi de bu: ortak hizmet almak, ortak terminal kullanmak, ortak
yakıt ihalelerinde bulunmak, ortak koltuklar yapmak gibi bu tarz hizmetlerin bütününü duşunun,
sadece uçağın kendisini değil.
-
Ayni zamanda uçuş destinasyonlarında da bir avantaj sağlıyor mu?
-
Banu: diğer başlıklarda direk olarak havacılıkla ilgili olan network, sales, vs. ffb
dediğimiz sadakat programları, onlar da ticari işbirliklerinin bir parçası. Oradaki
işbirlikleri havayollarının birbirini desteklemesi anlamında birçok kalemde etkin ayni
zamanda da lobi faaliyeti. Herhangi bir IATA için de böyle Aea ıcın de böyle
havayollarıyla ilgili olarak onların operasyonlarını, ticari islerini etkileyecek ulusal ya
da uluslararası anlamda alınan kararlara ortak cevap vermek, ortak tavır almak
gerekiyorsa, değiştirilmesi gerekiyorsa buna müdahil olmak. IATA bunun için var
örneğin. Dolayısıyla bu tarz kuruluşların etkinliği havayolları için önemli.
-
-peki, bu Star Alliance çerçevesinde rakiplerle işbirliğinde bulunuyorsunuz, Bu
paradoksal bir ilişki aslında.
75
-
Banu: ticari işbirliği mustlardan biri aslında. İttifak içinde işbirliği yapmak zorunlu
zaten. İttifak dışında olmaktansa üyelerin ittifak içinde maximum işbirliği yapması
sürekli desteklenen sürekli Support edilen sürekli altı çizilen bir husus. Ne kadar
başarıldığı becerildiği konusu da belki tartışmalı olabilir ama bu insan hayatındaki
gibi inişler çıkışlar gösteren, sadece iki kişinin ilişkisi sadece ikimizden ibaret değildir
çevresel faktörler de çok önemlidir. Avrupa Birliği’nin mesela ya da dünyada yaşanan
ekonomik krizlerin yarattığı bir takım ortamlarda ittifak içindeki havayolları örneğin
başka kanallara gitmiş olabilirler, o dönemde baktığınızda Intra-Star net işbirliğinin
düştüğünü, insanların dışarı kaçtığını görebilirsiniz ama bunlar değişken şeylerdir,
değişir zaman zaman.
-
Bazı akademik makaleler incelediğimde görüyorum ki alliance içine giren bazı
şirketlerin, yani alliance’dan sonra ayni alliance içinde birbirleriyle olan rekabet
seviyesinin aslında arttığı görülüyor. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz? Örnek
vereyim Lufthansa ile mesela, alliancedan sonra biz daha fazla rekabette bulunuyoruz
aslında ya da rekabet daha kızıştı diyebilir miyiz?
-
Onur: Diyebiliriz. Alliance’a girdiğimiz zaman aslında rekabet hiçbir zaman bitmiyor.
Yani ne kadar ticari işbirliği içinde olsa da aslında alliance içindeki herkes bizim
rakibimiz. Partnerimiz ama rakip partnerimiz. Lufthansa bunun için güzel bir örnek
ama son 5 yılda havacılıktaki gelişmeler ve dünya konjonktüründe olan gelişmeler,
Türkiye’de olan değişim bunların hepsinin çok büyük etkisi var çünkü biz 2008’de
THY olarak SA’a girdiğimizde 64 uçağımız vardı. Su an baktığımızda 220 kusur. O
dönemde çok daha az uçuş noktamız vardı, su an 100 kusur ülkeye uçuyoruz ve
dünyada ülke sayısı bakımından en çok ülkeye ucan bir numaralı havayoluyuz. Sektör
bakımından uçulan şehir bakımından bizden daha fazla noktaya ucan havayolları var,
örneğin Amerika var ama Amerika bizden çok daha fazla şehir olduğundan onların iç
hat networkleri çok büyük olduğundan dolayı otomatikman onların yüksek oluyor ama
ülkeye batiğiniz zaman THY bir numara. THY uçtuğu nokta olsun, filo sayısı olsun,
taşıdığı yolcu olsun. Transit yolcu burada çok önemli. Yani su anda biz öyle noktalar
acıyoruz ki Türkiye’deki insanları boş verin bizim duymadığımız noktalara biz sefer
düzenlemeye başladık. İnsanlar soruyorlar: İstanbul’dan Afrika’nın su noktasına kim
gidecek, siz bu seferleri niye acıyorsunuz? Biz artık sadece point to point traffic
dediğimiz yani İstanbul’dan alıp bir yolcuyu başka bir noktaya götürmek oradan da
alıp İstanbul’a getirmeye bağlı değiliz. Doğudan alıp İstanbul üzerinden Batıya
götürmek, batıdan alıp İstanbul üzerinden doğuya götürmek bizim yaptığımız en
önemli islerden bir tanesi de bu. Tabi THY bu kadar büyüyüp networkunu bu kadar
genişletip, yolcu sayisini -2008’deki rakamı hatırlamıyorum ama 2012’de 30 kusur
76
milyon yolcu taşıdık senelik, bu kadar en az 2 a da 3 kat artış olması lazım- veriler bu
kadar 2 digit artışlar olunca. Biz tabi Lufthansa ile, ve diğer Star Alliance
partnerlerimiz ile çok ciddi rekabet etmeye başladık. Bazı havayolları bundan
memnunken bazıları da bundan şikâyet ediyor, bu çok doğal bir durum. Çünkü
Avrupa’da biliyorsunuz çok ciddi bir ekonomik kriz var, bir suru havayolları iflas etti.
Spinair iflas etti Mani? İflas etti, Ukrayna’da aeroswift?? İflas etti, satın alınanlar
oldu, British mid??? Satın alindi, BA tarafından, star alliance’daydi çıkmak zorunda
kaldı, zorluk yaşayıp SAS gibi, LOT gibi, Hırvatistan havayolları gibi devlet
sübvansiyonuyla tekrardan ekonomik durumlarını düzelten veya geçici olarak diyelim
düzeltenler oldu. Bu şartlar altında Türkiye’nin ekonomik durumu ve THY’nin
büyümesi çok pozitif olduğundan dolayı tabi THY’nin basarisi haricinde bunlar da
bizi rakiplerimizin bizi olumlu onları olumsuz şekilde etkiledi.
-
Ama bir yandan da THY’nin destinasyon ağının genişlemesi onlar için de bir yandan
olumlu değil mi?
-
Bizim yapmış olduğumuz cost share dediğimiz anlaşmalar sayesinde THY’nin uçup
da onların uçmadıkları noktalara kendi sefer kodlarını koyarak kendi seferleriymiş
gibi satış yapabilme imkânlarına sahip oluyorlar. Tabi bu THY’nin networkunu
büyütmesi onlara bu anlamda bir avantaj sağlayabiliyor. Ama bunlar ticari anlaşmalar,
uçtuğumuz her noktada böyle anlaşmalar yapmıyoruz, ticari bir karar, 2 havayolu bir
araya gelip nerelerde ne gibi bir anlaşma yapacağını veya o anlaşmayı yapıp
yapmayacağını – star alliance içindeki bütün üyelerle bizim böyle anlaşmalarımız yok.
Olanlar var, olanlarla da tüm network çapında yapmıyoruz, bazı hatlarda bazı
seferlerde yapıyoruz. Ama tabii bu açıdan bakarsak onlar için ilave-offline nokta
diyoruz bu noktalara-offline noktası iken o havayolu sanki kendi seferiymiş gibi satış
yapabiliyor, bu offline nokta sayisini arttırabiliyorlar, biz de ayni şekilde kendi
uçmadığımız
noktalara
bu
anlaşmalar
sayesinde
offline
noktaları
online’a
çevirebiliyoruz.
-
- Peki, alliance içerisinde bazı şirketler bazı havayolları daha fazla avantaj sağlarken
diğerlerinin benefitinin daha az olması, herkesin bu alliance’dan eşit şekilde benefit
etmemesi durumu söz konusu mu bu durumda?
-
Eşit olunmasına çalışılıyor, ama tabi arada farklar olabilir böyle şeyler doğabilir.
Konuya göre, yapılan işbirliğine göre de değişebilir. Örneğin küçük bir havayolu,
biraz önce anlattığım bu offline noktaları online noktalara çevirme anlamında daha
çok avantaj sağlıyor. Çünkü networku küçük, büyük havayollarıyla işbirliği yaptığı
zaman networkunu daha çok genişletebiliyor. Ama zaten networku büyük bir
havayolu, o networku küçük havayollarıyla işbirliği yaptığında networkunu
77
genişletemiyor. Ama onun da farklı bir avantajı oluyor, büyük firma küçük
havayolunun daha çok yolcusunu alıp seferlerinde taşıyabilirken, küçük havayolu
büyük havayolunun yolcularını çok fazla alıp kendi seferleriyle taşıyamıyor-neden,
çünkü büyük havayolu zaten kendi uçaklarıyla her yere götürebiliyor. Yani ele
aldığımız konuya göre kimin ne kadar avantaj sağlıyor, kim artıda kim ekside değişir
tartışılır. Ama genel overalla bakarsanız aşağı yukarı, elbet genelde farklılıklar vardır,
herkes ayni durumda diye bir şey söyleyebiliriz. Sunun da tabi etkisi var buna tabi
yüzdesel bakmamak lazım, THY’nin toplam taşıdığı yolcunun ne kadarı star alliance
ile taşınıyor, çok küçük bir örnek Adria havayollarının yolcularının yüzde kaçı star
alliance ile taşınmış, fark eder. Yani senede 10000 yolcu taşıyan bir havayolu için
senede 1000 star alliance ile taşınan yolcu %10 yapar ama 30 milyon taşıyan bir
havayolu için 10 bin değil 100 bin gelse yine de küçük bir yüzde olarak kalacak.
Dolayısıyla hep bunlar göreceli kavramlar.
-
Peki, THY’nin en büyük avantajı Star Alliance ’da marka bilinirliği, network artış mı,
hangisi?
-
Marka bilinirliği demek daha doğru olabilir çünkü networkumuzu biz Star
çerçevesinde genişletmedik. Costta da çok ciddi bir avantajımız yok çünkü THY’nin
şansı şu, aslında Türkiye’nin şansı, Avrupa ile kıyaslarsanız bizim maliyetlerimiz çok
düşük, özellikle personel maliyetlerimiz. Biz neredeyse Avrupa’daki Easyjet, Rjanair,
gibi low cost havayollarıyla ayni maliyet seviyesine sahibiz. Bizimkisi onların üstünde
ama iste Lufthansa gibi, BA, Air France, KLM gibi havayollarına baktığınızda bizim
maliyet seviyemiz çok düşük bunun avantajını taşıyoruz. Bence en büyük avantaj
reklam, marka bilinirliği üzerine oldu çünkü biz Star’a girmeden önce THY
Avrupa’da Türkiye ile Almanya arasında gurbetçi vatandaşları, isçileri taşıyan yerel,
bölgesel bir havayolu olarak biliniyordu, öyle olmamasına rağmen. Ciddi bir önyargı
vardı. Kimse denemediğinden dolayı seferlerimizi, ikramımızın, servis kalitemizin,
uçaklarımızın ne gibi bir seviyede olduğunu bilmiyordu. Star sayesinde insanlar
denedikçe, THY ile uçtukça bu önyargı kırıldı. Tabi biz THY olarak da çok şey
yaptık, Manchester United’la, Barcelona’yla, Kobe Bryant’la, Hollywood Starı Kevin
Costner’la olan reklamlar ( ki bu ilk onunla başladı ) THY’nin imajını değiştirdi
Euroleague Basketbol şampiyonası böyle böyle reklam anlaşmalarıyla her yerde
THY’nin adı çıkmaya başlayınca Star Alliance ’in katkısıyla birlikte, tabi böyle bir
marka bilinirliği artarak devam etti. Zaten ölçümler de bunu gösteriyor. En son
dönemde Paris’te Air Show’da Startrek Ödüllerini üçüncü kez kazımamamız yolcuda
alınan feedbackin en önemli ölçümlerinden bir tanesi Startrex markası biliyorsunuz.
78
Yine 3. Kez odul aldik, bilinirliğimizin artması çok çok önemli alliance bize bunu bu
anlamda sağladı zaten bizim amacımız da büyük ölçüde buydu.
-
Dediğim gibi yan amaçlarımız da zaten ittifakın sunduğu şeylerdi zaten bunları zaten
bize taahhüt ediyordu tüm havayollarında olduğu gibi. Biz de bunları ne ölçüde
kullanırsak çünkü onlar manageable şeyler. Siz ne kadar ortak initiavelere katılırsanız,
ne kadar ortak alımlara katılırsanız onlar sizin karar vereceğiniz şeyler. Dolayısıyla
sales effect dediğimiz, ortak satış ürünlerine katılırsanız oradan size zaten mutlaka
geri dönüş olacak o kaçınılmaz.
-
- Peki, Star Alliance’a yeni bir havayolu şirketi katılırken SA üyesi havayollarının
görüsü alınıyor mu ya da reddetme hakki var mı?
-
Air India örneğini verelim.
-
Öncesinde White Spot denilen bir kavram var. Star, çeşitli pazarları üye havayolları
adına inceliyor. Mesela Rusya’da kim var, kiminle is birliği yapılabilir, oradan kim
katkı sağlayabilir, yeni bir havayoluyla is birliği yapmak iyi midir, doğru mudur
üyeler açısından ve ittifakın bütününe sağlayacağı katkı bakımından değerlendirilir.
Bireysel tabi ki havayolları kendi çıkarları için konuşurlar ama Star değerlendirmeyi
bütün havayolları için ortak genel fayda açsısından bakar. SA zaten tüm
havayollarının çıkarlarını korumak için kurulmuş bir işbirliği onun için dolayısıyla
Onur Bey’in söylediği gibi biliyorsunuz Hindistan Pazarı çok önemli bir Pazar ve o
pazarın en önemli aktörlerinden bir tanesi Air India. Air India devlet merkezli bir
havayolu, devlet tarafından idare olunan bir havayolu. Avrupa ile Hindistan’ın
bağlantıları, tarihten gelen işbirlikleri, tarihten gelen o derin bağlar ışığında böyle bir
pazarın durumu iste ülkenin her havalimanına sonsuz sayıda uçuş gerçekleştiğini
düşünürseniz orada ciddi bir potansiyel olduğunu, air india önemli bir örnek olarak
Star’in gündemine gelmiş idi. Bununla ilgili bir takım çalışmalar yapıldı, hatta bir
entegrasyon surecine girildi normal bir üye gibi. Biz buna uygun olduğunu
düşünüyoruz ne düşünüyorsunuz diye üyelere soruldu, üyeler çoğunlukla olumlu oy
verdiler, olumlu karar alindi ve entegrasyon sureci başlatıldı. Tüm diğer
havayollarında olduğu gibi bu süreç başlatıldı, bir timeline oluşturuldu, ve bütün
gelişmelerden üyeler düzenli olarak bildirildi, çeşitli toplantılardaki çeşitli
düzeylerdeki toplantılar vasıtasıyla. Fakat maalesef süreç tamamlanamadı ve bir
kesinti gerçekleşti, en önemli sorunlardan bir tanesi Air India’nin gerekli zamanlarda
gereken aksiyonları alamamasıydı.
-
Onur: Yani bu minimum şartları Air India bir turlu yerine getirmedi.
-
Bu da tabi havayollarının diğer üyelerinin itiraz ettiği bir duruma donuştu ve kesildi.
Yeniden üye olmasının gündemde olduğunu az çok biliyoruz ama yine de net bir şey
79
yok ortada, dediğim gibi aday havayolunun güvenlik Sartlarını Star Alliance ‘ın ortak
olarak sunduğu o hizmet bütününü sağlaması ve o kaliteyi artarak devam ettirmesini
sağlayacaksa havayolu, havayoluna okey veriliyor. Buna inanılmıyorsa oylama
yapılıyor ve üyeler bunun uygun olmadığına karar veriyorlar ve o üye kesinlikle
ittifaka kabul edilmiyor. Bununla ilgili idari süreçlerden geçiliyor tabi ki. Normalde
Star Alliance ile üye havayolunun imzaladıkları kurucu anlaşmalarda detayları
belirlenen seçme, seçilme isleyiş süreçleri var. Belirli zaman dilimlerine dağılan şeyler
var, bunlar uygulanıyor. Ve aday üyeler kabul ya da ret olunuyor, çok şeffaf her sureci
takip edebildiğiniz asamalar silsilesi diyebiliriz buna.
-
Bir alliance üyesi olmayan havayolu şirketleri de var, üye olmamayı tercih eden. Sizce
üye olmamalarını tercih etme nedeni nedir? Tek baslarına bulunmayı tercih etme
nedenleri.
-
Her kararda olduğu gibi alliance’a girme kararının da avantajları ve dezavantajları var.
Biraz önce avantajlarını sıralamaya çalıştık. Dezavantajları neler, sonuçta biz bir ticari
şirketiz. Alliance ‘in getirdiği ve ticaret yapmayı engelleyici kısıtlayıcı şartlar var. En
önemlisi su, diğer rakip alliance’lar, kim bunlar: Star Team ve One World. Bu
alliance’lara üye herhangi bir havayoluyla ben ortaklık yapmak isteyebilirim. Yani
ticaret gereği ticari karar gereği ben herhangi bir alliance partnerim yerine, aslında
One World’e ya da Sky Team’e üye bir havayolu ile ticari işbirliği yapmak
isteyebilirim. Ve bazı durumlarda gerçekten bu durum gerekebiliyor. Örnek
veriyorum, Rusya’da herhangi bir Star Alliance üyesi havayolu yok. Sibirya
havayolları var, One World üyesi, Aeroflot havayolları var, Rusya’nın milli taşıyıcısı,
Skyteam üyesi. Bunlar Rusya’nın en büyük iki taşıyıcıları. Ve ben Rusya’da kendime
bir partner aradığımda ilk tercihim Aeroflot ya da Sky team oluyor. Ve Star’in
getirdiği kısıtlama dolayısıyla ben onlarla ticari bir işbirliği içine giremiyorum. Benzer
şey Güney Amerika’da var. Lan çok büyük bir havayolu orda, bi de Tan var. Biz
Tan’la ticari işbirliği yaparken Tan Lan’la birleşme kararı aldı ve Latam oldular. Ve
One World’e girme kararı aldılar. Tan, Star Alliance’dan çıkma kararı aldı. Bu çok
büyük bir boşluk yarattı(Banu). Ve bu sebep dolayısıyla da bizim müzakere surecinde
olan anlaşmamız da yarım kaldı ve biz su anda Güney Amerika’da kendimize partner
bulmakta çok zorlanıyoruz. Bunlar oradaki herhangi bir Star üyesi olmamasından
kaynaklanan sorunlar. Veya öyle bir örnek olabilir ki bir bölgede ben bir Star
partnerimle ticari anlaşma yapmak istemeyebilirim, Çünkü dediğim gibi bu bir ticaret,
kimse kimsenin kara kaşına kara gözüne göre işbirliği yapmıyor, şartlar öyle gerektirir
ve ben star partnerim yerine oradaki one World y33;08 ya da sky team üyesi
80
havayollarıyla işbirliği yapmak isteyebilirim, çıkarlarım bu doğrultudadır, Star
Alliance buna izin vermiyor.
-
Banu: vermiyordu diyelim
-
Onur: vermiyor diyelim. Ha bunun özel koşulları var. Star Alliance’dan iki yıllık bir
sure için exception alınabiliyor, geçici izin veriyorlar ama tüm üyelerin bunu kabul
etmesi lazım. Eğer bir üye bile bunu kabul etmezse siz bu anlaşmayı yapamıyorsunuz.
Su anda 28 üye oldu galiba dun itibariyle. 28 üyenin de sizin anlaşmanıza onay
vermesi, çekimser ya da negatif oy vermemesi gerekiyor artı bu sure de 2 yıl için. 2 yıl
bitince sizin gerekçelerinizle Star’dan tekrar onay almanız gerekiyor. Siz büyük bir
havayoluysanız ve kendinizi bu anlamda kısıtlamak istemiyorsanız alliance’a
girmiyorsunuz, bunun örnekleri var.
-
Banu: Ya da çok büyük, zaten tartışmasız bir suru kaynağı olan körfez taşıyıcılarından
örneğin –onların da eğilimlerinin değişmesi yönünde sinyaller var ama onlar da tek
baslarına takılmak isliyorlar çünkü kimseye ihtiyaçlarının olmadığını düşünüyorlar. O
da başka bir şey. O bölgelerinin getirdiği kendi konjonktürlerinin yarattığı bir şey,
kesinlikle tercihe bağlı bir durum. Bizler ticari merkezli yapılar olduğumuz için ona
göre hareket etmek birincil.
-
İleride peki bu bir mecburiyet haline gelebilir mi sizce, bir alliance’a girmek?
-
Hayır olmaz, ama söyle bir şey olabilir, alliancea girmeyen havayolları dışarıda tek
baslarına kalırlar, çok ticari açıdan kendilerini tek hissedip işbirliği anlamında geri
kaldıklarını hissederlerse böyle bir durum ortaya çıkabilir ama; benim şahsi görüşüm
alliancelarin da önemi gittikçe azalıyor. Çünkü alliance içinde başka alliancelar oluyor
Lufthansa, Avusturya Havayolları, Swiss, SN Brussels bunlar star alliance içinde
başka küçük bir alliance. Bazen bu havayollarının kendi içindeki işbirlikleri Star’la
ters düşebiliyor. Veya joint venturelar: United Airlines, Air Canada, Lufthansa Air
plus plus adında bir joint venture kurdular transatlantik trafiğini yönlendiren-Avrupa
ve Amerika arasındaki bütün uçuşlarda hangi seferde hangi havayoluyla yolcular
uçarsa uçsun parayı yüzde elli yüzde elli bölüşüyorlar. Dolayısıyla o yolcu Air
Canadayla mi uçmuş Lufthansayla mi uçmuş hiç önemli değil. Birbirlerini
destekliyorlar çünkü birinin zararı diğerinin de zararı, birinin kari oburunun de kari.
Dolayısıyla başka bir havayolu bu havayollarıyla işbirliği yapmak istediğinde
öncelikli olarak kendi aralarında görüşüyorlar: yapalım mi yapmayalım mı?
Dolayısıyla onların içindeki alliance Star’in üstünde bir işbirliği oluyor ve bu gibi
joint venture’lar gün geçtikçe artıyor. Dolayısıyla artık bir gün gelecek ki artık bu
alliance ’in içindeki alliance’lar yani joint venturelar alliancelarin önüne geçecek ve
alliancelarin çok da bir önemi kalmayacak. Bu sefer alliance’a girmeyen havayolları
81
veya girip de memnun kalmayan havayolları biraz da venture’larin pesinde koşacaklar
durum oraya doğru gidiyor.
-
-Banu: İttifakların sonu geliyor mu sorusu gündemde
-
Onur: İttifakların sonu geliyor mu bu soru çok konuşuluyor, joint venturelar
ittifakların yerini alabilir mi, alamaz alabilir tartışmalar yapılıyor. Ama durum şöyle
gösteriyor ki böyle şeyler olacak. Ne kadar zamanda olur beş sene on sene 20 sene.
Ama bu durum değişecek yani alliancelarin da bir gün modası geçecek bence.
-
Banu: Pazarların değişen şartları farklı tür işbirliklerini gerektiriyor. Yani alliance’lar
yeterli olmuyor her pazarın ya da o pazarın aktörlerinin ihtiyaçlarını karşılamaya.
Dolayısıyla joint venture denilen kavram son günlerde daha popüler ve bu da her
havayolunun gündeminde olan bir soru aslında. Neyi, nasıl, nerde kiminle yapılabilir
diye araştırmalar yapılıyor, bununla ilgili çok makale var.
-
I would like to get to know you first, for how long have you been working in this
position, and in Turkish Airlines?
-
Banu: I started in 1998 at the ground operations while I was a university student.
After graduation I worked at a department related to agreements in ground
operations. Since 2008 I’ve been working in that department. Here in the department
of International Relations and Agreements department, we are responsible for both
commercial agreements and alliance relationships in terms of continuity and
coordination. By alliances I mean Star Alliance and international organisations such
as IATA and AIA. Here I am responsible for daily operational tracking and highlevel reporting.
-
Onur: I started working for Turkish Airlines in 2000, and after several departments I
came to this department in 2003. Since then I am at the international Relationships
and Alliances Department. What do we do here? First of all we have two main
subjects: Relationships with airlines and international relationships. If we see
Turkish Airlines as the Republic of Turkey, here is a department equivalent for the
Ministry of International Affairs. For one airline to be eligible to fly from one
country to the another, first of all , countries have to sign an agreement amongst each
other. Regarding this agreement , airlines become eligible to organize flights. These
agreements are called Air TransportationAgreement and Directorate General of Civil
Aviations, who are dependent on the Ministry of Transportation sign these
82
agreements. We attend all these relating meetings as the leading airline company; as
those agreemtns directly affecting all airlines; regarding the weekly frequency,
origin and destination determination, whether there will be any restriction at the
number of seats etc.. This is our first duty here. Second part of our job here is about
the all commercial agreements, all the relationships regarding with all other airlines
and interorganizational structures such as IATA, European Airline Association, Arab
Carrier Organization, Association of South American Airlines-those are international
aviation organisations; and Star Alliance, which is more commercial relationships
organization.
We joined Star Alliance in 1st of April, 2008. Prior to that, there was a serious period
of decision making, and a big endeavour to join the alliance once joining decision
was made. Just like the EU joining negotiations of Turkey, Star Alliance and Turkish
Airlines had such a joining negotiation process. We had a booklet of minimum
requirements similar to that size book ( showing a small but thick book) , and all
airlines have to fulfil that list of requirements to become a Star Alliance member.
-BANU: All airlines experience an integration process, not less than one year long.
-ONUR: As the directorate, we had the coordination of this integration process of the
Turkish Airlines to the Star Alliance. There are many variety of requirements: For example,
from the color of the label attached to the business class passenger’s luggage to be
distinguished…
-BANU: ..or sharing the cost share sales reports and some other data with a determined
format within determined periods.
- How long did this integration process take in Turkish Airlines?
- ONUR: It took approximately 1 and half years, starting at the end of 2006. And we
became one of the 8 airlines who has the highest level of the membership type. There are 3
different types of memberships, where they have different levels of power in the alliance
dynamics. These memberships take their names from the 3 star clusters in the galaxy: Pollux,
Castor and Vassat. Pollux is the highest membership type, which has highest membership
fee, but in terms highest level of rights and responsibilities.
-BANU: Can be summarized as the membership type which shapes the alliance, in the
“mover and the shaker position.
-ONUR; And Turkihs Airlines keeps this type of membership. It requires 100%attendence to
all meetings, minimum of 70% satisfaction of all requirements of the alliance. If your
83
satisfaction level of these requirements falls below 70%, Star has sanction of decrease your
membership type to one-lower level but keeping the highest level membership fee. Of course
what matters in such case is not the membership fee but the prestige of the airline, it’s a
matter of shame and blame. There are not many airlines in the lowest membership type, the
ones in that level of membership are the ones who are belong to the big airlines , who are
also already Star Alliance members- such as Brussels, Austrian Airlines, of Lufthansa. As
these big parent airlines make the decisions on their own, they don’t need higher level of
membership status with higher participation right in the decision making process. They are
just like mandartory countries under the control of the big ones.
-BANU; By the way, we forgot some other duty in our job description part ( they both
explain about trade agreements which provide cheaper travel tickets for Turkish airline
employees from other airlines)
- Did Turkish Airlines have any concerns or any hesitation in joining the Star Alliance?
BANU: Estimated cost of joining is well determined in the agreements. For an airline
company, the biggest motivation of joining an alliance is decreasing the costs, and Star
Alliance or another alliance guarantee with written agreements that it will bring added value
and contribution; and makes it true mostly.
One of the biggest reasons for us to join Star Alliance was increasing our brand awarenessthat we used it very successfully, and we still use and enjoy the benefits of the ‘Star’ brand.
We also had secondary targets such as cust cutting and network effect and sales effect. The
revenues obtained from the products of the alliances they offer provides all these benefits.
ONUR: Lets give an example. What we call the aircraft is a very interesting device, vehiclewhatever we call it. You buy only the body of the plane from Airbus or Boeing. You buy the
engines from another firm: Rolls Royce, General Electric, etc. , you buy the seats and the
wheels from another firm.
BANU: Or self-manufacture the parts if you can.
ONUR: Here Star Alliance intervenes and says: As all airlines make separate barganings
with seat produces. Instead, lets unite and instead of buying 1000 seats each of us, lets buy
10000 or 50000 seats , so we would have higher level of bargaining power. Or, lets
manufacture seats together. Star Alliance issued a project called Economy Seat Project, and
produced its own seats. And some member airlines-it was not a compulsory project- used
these seats which produced with Star Alliance initiative.
-Did Turkish Airlines participate in this project?
84
- ONUR: No, because the manufactured seats were below the quality standards of Turkish
Airlines. We prefer a different seat model, to provide maximum comfort to the passengers.
We have different standards, such as screens at every seat, etc. We also started producing our
own seat, by having a joint venture with a firm; which would decreased our unit costs. But
seat is only an example, additional to that Star also initiates purchasing biddings for fuel and
food service inputs, where Turkish Airlines also participates from time to time and providing
serious level of cost savings.
-BANU: As Mr. Onur mentions, plane should not be perceived as a single entity, it is also
important to consider the related services as well: ground services, flight services or all
services related in the ground. Star promises a passenger the seamless travel, which requires
cooperation in many areas, or co-invest in that areas to provide this seamless experience, and
obtaining benefits in turns. You create a common value in alliance level when everyone
within alliance obtain benefits. This is one of the biggest aims of these alliances: getting
common service, using common terminals, producing seats together etc. alliances provide a
scale covering all related ones.
- Does Star Alliance provide advantages in terms of flight destinations?
-BANU: Network, sales , and loyalty programs are also parts of those commercial
cooperations, also lobbying as well. Such organizations as well as IATA, AEA exist to
involve in decisions effecting the operations and commercial aspects of member airlines: to
be one single voice against the decisions made, or react collectively where required. That is
why such organisations carry utmost importance for airlines.
- You are within a cooperative formation within Star Alliance membership, which is actually
quite paradoxal.
- BANU: Commercial cooperation (of competitors) is one of the musts. Within an alliance
cooperation is compulsory. It is continuously supported and made stress on having maximum
cooperation among alliance members. To what extend it is successful, this might be
discussed. But just like in people’s lives, theres rising and going-down times, and it is not
only dependent on the involving parties; as external factors also play important role. During
the economic crisis in European Union or other economic crisis in the world, during these
times the member airlines might have got more isolated from each other or chosed other
methods rather than cooperating with the alliance members, during these times you might
see that the level of cooperation within star alliance network decreased; however those are
temporary issues.
85
- Is it possible that once firms involve within an alliance network, the competition level
between each other increases? For example, Lufthansa. Did competition with Lufthansa
become more aggressive after the alliance formation of Turkish Airlines, or vice verca?
- ONUR: We can definitely say that the competition got more aggressive. Competition does
not finish once you enter in the alliance. All members within the alliance are our
competitors. They are our partners, but competitor partners. Lufthansa is a good example for
that. However, not only the alliance membership but the improvements in the aviation sector
in the last 5 years, changes in the world conjuncture , change that Turkey had have all
important effects in the increase in competition. Once we joined Star Alliance, Turkish
Airlines had 64 aircrafts. Now it is more than 220. In that period we had lower number of
destinations, we currently fly over 100 countries and we are number one airline in the world,
flying to the maximum amount of countries. There are other airlines who fly to greater
number of cities compared to us, such as USA as the have a very huge number of cities they
fly, so this number dependent on their number of domestic destinations. However, in terms
of the number of the countries, Turkish Airlines is the number one. In such case, transit
passengers carry utmost importance. We currently fly to such new destinations that to the
destinations even we have not hear before. People ask us: Who would go to that point of
Africa from Istanbul? The answer is, we are not only dependent on point to point traffic,
which is taking one passenger from Isanbul and taking to another destionation, and turning
back to Istanbul. One of the most important things we do is taking the passenger from east to
the west via Istanbul, or vice versa. So , Turkish Airlines significantly grew and strengthened
its network, and increased the number of passengers with two digit percentages- I don’t
remember the number in 2008 but in 2012 we carried more than 30 million passengers. As a
result, we began to compete with Lufthansa and other member airlines seriously. Some
airlines are happy with that some of them complain about it, which is very natural. As you
know in Euope there is a serious economic crisis, lots of airlines declared their bankruptcies.
Spinair, Mani.., Aeroswift in Ukraine, all had bankruptcy. Many airlines had acquisitions,
many had been survived-temporarily with the governments subventions. Under all these
conditions, Turkey’s economic condition and Turkish Airline’s growh had been so positive ,
which affected us positively, but affected our competitors negatively.
- Isn’t the increase in the network of Turkish Airlines on the benefit of the other member
airlines?
- We make agreements called code share agreements. With these agreements, an airline who
does not flight to a specific destination that Turkish Airline flies, can put their own flight
code and sell tickets as if it is their own flight. The growth in the network of Turkish Airlines
86
provide advantage for member airlines in such way. However these are commercial
agreements, and we do not set such agreements in every destination we fly. Two airlines can
discuss whether and where to have such agreements. Indeed, we do not have such
agreements with every Star member. And we make these agreements in only some
destinations. This shifting offline-destinations to online destinations is an opportunity for all
alliance members, we also shift our offline destinatons to online with such agreements as
well.
- Is it possible to say that not every airline benefits in the same level from the alliance, that
some airlines benefit more than the others?
- It is tried to make it equal for every member, but of course it is possible to have differences
in terms of benefits gained. It might vary depending on the subject and the type of the
cooperation. For instance, a small airline company gains more advantage in terms of turning
offline points into the online points. It has a small network, but it can strengthen it via
cooperating with big airlines. But the big airline, who already has a wide network, cannot
strengthen its network as the result of the agreement with the small airline. However, the big
one has other kind of advantages. As it is capable to carry more passengers from the small
airline and carry, where the small one cannot take many passengers from the big airline, as
the big one is already capable of taking its passengers to everywhere with its big aircrafts.
So, who benefits more and less depends on the subject and area of the cooperation. In
overall, of course there are differences in terms of the benefits.
On the other hand, it is important not to look on very surface. It differs what percentage of
Turkish Airlines and Adria Airlines are carried via Star Alliance. For an airline carrying
10000 passengers, 1000 passengers a year means its 10%. However, for an airline carrying
30 million passengers, not 10000 but even 100000 passengers would stay as a small
percentage. So these are all relativistic concepts.
-
What is the biggest advantage of Star Alliance for Turkish Airlines? Brand
awareness, network strengthening, which one?
-
We can say that it is the brand awareness, as we didn’t widen our network with Star
Alliance. We also don’t have a serious advantage in terms of cost neither as a big
advantage, compared to Europe, Turkey has significantly low costs-particularly in
terms of personels. We almost have the same cost levels with the low-cost airlines in
Europe such as Easyjet and Ryanair. Of course our cost levels are higher than those
airlines, but compared to British Airways, KLM or Air France, our costs are
relatively so low. I think the biggest advantage had been on the brand awareness and
advertisement. Before we joined Star Alliance, Turkish Airlines was known as a
87
local airline who carries Turkish workers living in Europe-in spite of it is not. There
was a serious prejudice. Noone knew about the quality of our service, food, flight
experience as no one used to try it. With Star, the more people tried, the more this
prejudice had vanished. Of course as Turkish Airlines, we made a lot of steps to
defeat this prejudice as well: Campaigns with Manchester United, Barcelona, Kobe
Bryant, Hollywood Star Kevin Costner (that it was the beginning of the big
campaigns) changed the image of the Turkish Airlines. Euroleague Basketball
Championship as another example as well. This is how the brand awareness
increased. The measurements prove this as well. As a great evidence of the feedback
taken from the passengers, we took the Startrax Prize as the third time at the Air
Show Paris. Startrax is the most important brand in that manner, in terms of the
feedback provided from the passengers. Alliance provided us this increase in the
brand awareness, which was the biggest aim on joining the star alliance.
-
Our minor targets were the things that the alliance already serves-promises. And it
depends on to what extent we use these things as an airline, because they are all
manageable things. It all depends on the airlines decision to join collective
initiatives, or collective procurements.
-
In the end, you absulutely enjoy the benefits of the sales effect once you join the
collective procurements.
-
Do they take the opinions of the member airlines once another airline is about
joining Star Alliance?
-
Lets give Air India Example.
-
At the very beginning of the process, there is a concept called White Spot. Star
examines many markets on behalf of the airlines. For example, which airlines are
active in Russia, which one can make a contribution, who can be possibly be the new
partners, etc. And the new potential partner gets assessed in terms of the overall
contribution it could make to the alliance. Of course member airlines speak for their
own rights, but when Star talks, it talks for the benefit of the all airlines. So Star
makes the assessment in terms of the contribution it could make for all airlines’
common benefits.
-
Banu: Star Alliance is an establishment to protect the benefits of all member airlines,
as Mr. Onur said. Indian market is a very important market and Air India is one of
the most important actors of that market. It is a public-centered airline, I mean it is
governed by the state. Air India came to the agenda of Star Alliance, regarding the
significant passenger potential; where there are huge numbers of arrivals to the every
single airport of the country, the economic condition of the country, the cooperations
88
between Europe and India with a great history, etc. There had ben some studies
about it, and the integration process started just like any candidate member has the
process. It was asked the opinions of the member airlines, and majority of the
members supported the idea of Air India to join Star Alliance. Just like it is in every
integration process, the process started and a timeline was created. And all member
airlines were informed about the important highlights of the process, via meetings at
the different levels. However, unfortunately, the process could not be completed and
there had been a break at the process. One of the biggest reasons was that Air India
could not take the required actions within the required timeframe.
-
Onur: With other words, Air India somehow could not satisfy the minimum
requirements.
-
Banu: Which has turned into a situation where other airlines have refused, so the
integration process has stopped. We slightly know that Air India might apply for
membership again, but it is not clear and certain yet. An airline is approved only if it
provides the increase and continuity of Star Alliance quality, and if only it satisfies
the security requirements, or the whole service quality. If it is not believed so, as the
result of the voting among members, and members decide that it is inappropriate, so
that the airline does not get accepted to the alliance.
-
So there are many administrative process related. There are rights about electing and
to be elected, and also voting, which are clearly defined in the founding charters.
There are time limits where the airlines have to fulfil the requirements. So the
process of a new airline to become a member is a very transparent process where
member airlines can observe the process, and can vote in the end for the new
member. We can say that integration is a series of many stages that we can all
follow-up.
-
There are also member airlines who prefer not to be a member of any alliance. What
do you think the reasons are not to join an alliance? Why do they prefer to be alone?
-
Like in every decision, joining an alliance also has advantages and disadvantages.
We just tried to list its advantages. What are the disadvantages, well in the end we
are commercial companies. There are some limiting terms that the alliance brings,
which restricts doing business. The biggest limitation it brings is: Well Star Alliance
has two big competitors: One World and Sky Team. I might want to have a
commercial collaboration with an airline who is a member of one of these two
alliances. And there are some conditions where it becomes really necessary. For
example, there is no Star Alliance member airline in Russia right now. There is
Syberian Airlines: One World Member. There is Aeroflot Airlines, the national
89
carrier of Russia: Skyteam Member. Those are the two biggest carriers of Russia.
Once I look for a partner for myself in Russia, my first two choices become either
Areoflot of Syberian Airlines. However, I cannot get into a commercial agreement
with those airlines regarding the restriction that Star Alliance brings. The similar
case also happens in South America. LAN is a very big airline company, and there is
also Tam Airlines. While we were about making a commercial collaboration with
Tam, Tam decided to merge with Tan, they become Latam Airlines. Then they
decided to join One World Alliance. So that Tan left Star Alliance.
-
Banu: And it created a big hole.
-
Onur: Because of these reasons our agreement, which was at the negotiation process,
couldn’t be completed. And currently we have serious challenges of finding ourself
partners in the South America. These are problems sourced from there is no Star
Alliance member airlines at the South America. Or there might be such a case that, I
might not want to make a commercial agreement with one of my Star partners, as I
said before this is business. No-one makes collaborative agreements with emotional
decisions, it is all logical. The conditions, my own benefits might make me want to
have a collaborative agreement with a Sky Team or One World. However Star
Alliance does not allow this.
-
Banu: It didn’t used to allow, lets say.
-
Onur: It does not allow, lets say. But there are special conditions. It is possible to get
a temporary exception from Star Alliance for two years for such agreements.
However all other member airlines have to accept that. Even if one of the Star
Alliance member airline rejects it, you cannot make that agreement. All 28 members
have to approve your decisions, even if one of them gives abstaining vote you cannot
make this agreement. Indeed, this exception is only for two years. In the end of two
years, you have to present your reasons and ask for permission from Star Alliance
again. If you are a big airline who does not want to restrict itself with such
conditions, you prefer not to join any alliance, which we have examples.
-
Banu: There are also airlines who indisputably have many resources, like Gulf
Carriers, for instance. They want to continue alone because they think they don’t
need anyone else. However, there are also signals about their approach might change
as well. It all depends on the self-decision of the airlines. Something that their
conjuncture brings. It is primary for us to move with our business benefits, as we are
commercial formations.
-
Do you think that becoming an alliance member can be a necessity or obligation in
the future?
90
-
Onur: No, I don’t think that it would. There might be a situation if airlines who do
not join an alliance stay alone commercially and feel theirselves alone and they had
a disadvantageous situation in terms of business collaboration. However, in my
personal opinion, the importance of the alliances are decreasing. Because within
alliances, other small alliances take place. For instance, there is a small alliance
within Star Alliance, consist of Lufthansa, Austrian Airlines, Swiss, and Brussels
Airways. Sometimes the collaboration between those airlines get contradicting with
the collaborative benefits of Star Alliance. There are also joint ventures. United
Airlines, Air Canada, and Lufthansa have established a joint venture called Air
Plusplus. This venture is yonlendiriyor the Transatlantic traffic. At the flights
between Europe and America, regardless of which of these airlines fly: they share
the revenue. So it is regardless of the passenger flew via Air Canada or Lufthansa.
They support each other because revenue of one is revenue of the others, or the cost
of the one is the cost of the others. In such case, once another airline wants to have
cooperative agreement with one of these airlines, they initially discuss among each
other: shall we or not. So the cooperation they have among each other becomes
dominant/superior than the cooperation within Star Alliance. Indeed, such joint
ventures become more widespread. To conclude, I think one day those joint ventures
within the alliances will be dominant over the alliances and alliances wont have any
significance anymore. So once airlines get unsatisfied from the alliances with the
reasons I mentioned above, will seek for joint ventures.
-
Banu: The question that whether the end of the alliances are coming is on the rise.
-
Onur: It is discussed a lot that whether the end of the alliances are coming, there are
discussions of whether joint ventures can replace alliances all. I think that the current
position gives signals that such things will happen. I don’t know whether it happens
in the next decade or in twenty years. I personally believe that the alliances will lose
their popularities one day.
-
Banu: The changing conditions of the markets require different types of
collaborations. So the alliances don’t be enough to answer the needs of the actors in
every markets. So the concept of joint venture is currently popular. And this is a
question in every airline’s agenda. All airlines constantly seek for what to do, where
to do and with him to do. There are many research going on about this manner.
91
92
APPENDIX 4- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview with Marej Jazak, Impact & Portfolio Analyst
ar EUREKA Secretariat and Piotr Pogorzelski, officer at EUREKA Secretariat , and Lecturer
at European Institute of Public Administration
I have a few questions for my dissertation; about you know I am writing about the concept of
coopetition, which really fits with the concepts of EUREKA, both in terms of the EUREKA
Clusters and the Eurostars Program. As I am handling with the both the multinational side
and SME side of coopetition, and will have some questions about that manner.
My first question is what are the differences between EUREKA clusters and the
EUROSTARS Program in terms of perceptions and approaches of the firms involving
because there are serious maybe trust issues, or how to collaborate as competitors, etc.
-
Well let me start with EUROSTARS we have a very .. one because when they apply
for the funds, they have to give us a definition on how they plan to share the
property rights a colleague of mine just walked in, he knows a lot of stuff he knows
about the coopetition.
-
So just I am describing EUROSTARS and how they are different than EUROKA
Clusters.
- Good morning, hello. Can you hear me okay now? The thing about EUROSTARS is, how
to deal with competing companies are working at the same project and how to deal with the
competitive aspect working together. I was explaining actually how they define what we call
the “Consortium Agreement” The companies that are working in a given project, before they
receive funds and the before the project is even approved, they have to define in a certain
extent that how they are going to deal with sharing the things that they create together. Is that
clear and make sense for your question?
- Definitely. But the problem is, how do they define it? They define it with the help of
EUREKA or they just come together , decide and then come to EUREKA and say hey we
are here and we have this project?
- Well it is kind of a back-and forth process , because each company is in touch with a
national representative, who helps them to defined the specific elements of the Consortium
Agreement. It is a back and forth process and the national representative of EUREKA say
maybe it is better to say it that way, or maybe you should watch out of this aspect of PR etc.
93
- Consortium agreement that you can find in the internet and copy paste on your work, it
would be so helpful for your research.
-Essentially within projects that are uniting companies that are basically competitors. In any
cluster companies involve who normally are competing with each other, even the very big
companies. The reason why they involve together in such projects is that they will define
standards that every company will use which have to agree anyway. And by defining the
standards in Europe, they all make sure that they don’t have to using standards that have
been decided in other parts of the world; at America, or Japan. That cluster 2 work on
software, a cluster called ITEA2, clusters work on telecoms –telecommunication including
mobile phones and the internet that you use in the smart phones that’s the cluster called
CELTIC Plus, then the cluster working on electronics: chips on you can use on your
computers, laptops, that cluster is called catrine .Those are the 3 clusters we have, the most
successful ones. The other clusters might work a bit differently; they keep the aspect of big
companies all together for standards setting. Also they come together to set standards in
areas such as how useful is to build a windmill to have energy on the sea, for example or
water sector on the quality of water, and this is not something to set in the market in united
states, for example. That’s how it works for the clusters.
- But as you said, clusters are mainly for the big companies, right?
-Interesting idea is that, clusters originally set by big companies together with national
selling agencies as a part of EUREKA Network. Since the very start involved in the industry
the very big now the companies. The big companies are not the ones participating these
projects. Cluster projects are occasions for very small companies, and for universities to
work with those big companies. That is interesting for them because the big companies can
become clients for them. And then the others have to reduce to manufacturing products
because small companies can never be able to invest in millions for building big factories.
- What are the challenges for the small companies to be in such a formation with the
companies? I mean it is a huge benefit to be able to work with them, but what are the
challenges? Do they have any worries about exploitation, or knowledge leakage if we are
talking about a very knowledge intensive sector? Do they face such challenges by working
with the big ones?
-I would say that the big companies would work with the very best of small companies. On
the other side, big companies always work with the small companies (…) There is a trend
that big companies delegate the part of their work which is not very profitable for them to the
smaller companies. Pressures from shareholder, etc. make them do not have risk in their
94
companies. They delegate risky parts of their works to the small companies: such as
innovation, R&D. So they make small companies work for them for research and innovation.
Sometimes, in pharmaceutical companies for instance, there are several small companies
which the big company would invest, and at the end they will just send the results of the
small company that in the medication development. That is one way to look at it. So that is
not much a challenge necessity for big companies to work with small companies, but the
small companies have to be very best to work with the big ones.
Now clusters are made of big companies working together but actually the way of
management in to make it more democratic process is that the similarity with what is
happening in EUROSTARS. Twice a year every cluster launches a call to small companies
or universities to join to a big project, who are at their best. And very often, at the end of
every project small company continues working with for those big companies, where the big
company would become a client of the small company.
If you compare them, big companies and the small companies involving in the coopetition,
competing and collaborating at the same time; what are the differences we can say, in small
ones and the big ones? For instance SMEs or MNCs are more flexible, or what are the other
features?
I think that there are many differences. I think the main difference would be that big
companies set standards for the whole industry, they work together for the incentives? . They
will cover slightly cover different markets otherwise technical .. would be same…
Marek: There is a difference that the big companies coopete for setting standards where in
the end anyone would benefit, but the small companies engaging coopetition-its kinda like
just like in the game theory where you have collaborating in a given amount of time for the
optimum strategy, but after one point there is actually going to be a definite winner , so I
think of coopetition is way more aggressive between small companies, they are engaging in
coopetition because they have to; orherwise they wont be able to reach to the maximum
profit. Once its done, there will be pure competition.
-Other collegue: I THINK CONCEPT OF CRITICAL MASS definitely applies for the fis
what I’ll say now: This is also relevant for the technological ties for the big companies, they
do not have to actually, they all have capabilities, laboratories etc but they want to work
together because they might find different things with different approaches. So they still
need some critical mass for the technological part.
95
- So you both said that from the SME side it is more aggressive for necessities to survive or
prosper; however in big companies it is like to make things better in terms of the
standardization, or lobbying, etc. I get it right?
- Also in terms of technology as well, I will send you some examples.
-What do you think about the future of coopetition? When I make some research I see that
there are two approaches: that one of the approaches see coopetition as the future, that its
gonna be dominating and wide-spread in industries; especially in technology related secotrs;
on the other hand; the other approach says that; as the competition is really dominant,
coopetition will stay only as a temporary phase. What do you think about its future?
-I think even more competitive environment will take place and that wil still be the
coopetition between small and the big companies .
96
APPENDIX 5- TRANSCRIPTION: Interview With Emre Yurttagul, EUREKA TurkeyInternational Project Coordinator
ORIGINAL INTERVIEW: IN TURKISH
-
Öncelikle kendinizden bahseder misiniz ne zamandır EUREKA ’da ve ne zamandır
bu görevde devam ediyorsunuz?
-
Ben son dört senedir EUREKA Programı içerisindeyim. EUREKA Programı proje
sorumlusu olarak başladım 2009 da, sonrasında Almanya Donem Başkanlığından
sonra Israil, Macaristan ve son olarak Türkiye Donem Başkanlığı sırasında Ulusal
Proje Koordinatörü oldum. Donem başkanlığımızı 21 Haziran’da tamamladık ve
Norveç’e devrettik. Sonuç olarak son 4 senedir aktif olarak EUREKA için
çalışıyorum.
-
EUREKA Cluster’larinin yapılarından biraz bahseder misiniz? Sınırları, katilim nasıl
oluyor diye?
-
EUREKA Programı altındaki pillar’larindan 3 önemli ayaklardan bir tanesi kümeler.
EUREKA Kümeleri belirli teknoloji alanında faaliyet gösteren yapılar ve her küme
belirli bir teknoloji alanında faaliyet gösteriyor ve kümeler o teknoloji alanında
Avrupa’daki lider firmalar etrafında oluşturuluyor. Örneğin ITEA2 kümesi simdi
artık önümüzdeki sene ITEA3 olarak devam edecek, Airbus gibi, Daimler gibi çok
büyük oyuncuların bir araya gelerek kurduğu yapılar. Bu kümelerin amacı da ayni
teknoloji alanında faaliyet gösteren firmaların bir araya gelerek yapacakları ARGE
çalışmalarında risk paylaşmak ve geleceğin teknolojilerine yon verebilmek adına bir
network oluşturmak. Yani kümeler aslında networkler belirli teknoloji alanında
faaliyet gösteren. Burada benzer çalışmalar yapan ama ayni zamanda rakip olan
firmalar bir araya gelerek ortak teknoloji üretmeye çalışıyorlar. Kümeler bir fon
kaynağı değil, sadece bir platform: bu platformda ortak proje sunan firmaları da
ülkeler destekliyorlar Türkiye olarak da biz küme projelerini destekliyoruz, yani fon
ayırıyoruz, bütçe ayırıyoruz ve destekliyoruz. Ama her ülke bunu yapmıyor tabii ki.
Her ülkenin bunu destekleyen daha doğrusu her kümeyi destekleyen ülkeler var,
bunlara da ülke kümelerin web sayfalarından ulaşmak mümkün. Kümelerin de
biliyorsunuz her kümenin belirli bir çağrı takvimi var, o çağrı takvimi doğrultusunda
projeleri Kabul ediyor; her kümenin de bir teknik değerlendirme komitesi var, önce
uluslararası değerlendirmeye tabi tutuluyor sunulan projeler, ondan sonra eğer proje
kümenin stratejik workbook’una uygunsa küme etiketi almaya hak kazanıyor, küme
etiketi alan projeler de fon alabilmek için kendi ülkelerine başvuruyorlar çünkü
küme projelerinde de ulusal fonlarla projeler destekleniyor. Dolayısıyla fon
alabilmek için küme etiketi almış projelerin partnerleri gelip kendi ülkelerine ulusal
97
fon başvurusunda bulunuyorlar ve bazı ülkeler küme etiketi alan projeleri doğrudan
fonluyor ama Türkiye gibi birkaç ülkede proje küme etiketi alsa dahi kendi ulusal
değerlendirmesini yapıyor. Ulusal değerlendirmesi negatif olursa proje küme etiketi
alsa dahi projeyi desteklemeyebiliyor. Onun için hani hem projenin küme
uluslararası
değerlendirmesinden
hem de
fon
alabilmesi
için
de
ulusal
değerlendirmesinden geçmesi gerekiyor.
-
Peki, bu kümelerde sadece büyükler mi bir arada oluyor, KOBİ’lerin de katilimi söz
konusu mu? Ya da Kobiler için ayrı kümeler mi söz konusu oluyor?
-
Kobiler için ayrı kümeler söz konusu değil, Kobiler de istedikleri kümeye proje
başvurunda bulunabiliyorlar?
-
Bu peki yaygın mı?
-
Yaygın aslında. Türkiye’den ITEA’da özellikle birçok Kobi ITEA projelerine
başvuruyor ve destekleniyor. Kümelerin yönetim kurulları var. Burada Kobilerden
ziyade büyük oyuncular bu yönetim kurulunu oluşturuyorlar, yönetim kurulunda
olmanın avantajı veya dezavantajı söz konusu değil proje değerlendirmesinde ancak
hani bu yönetim kurulundaki firmalar kümenin stratejik çalışma kitabini-stratejik
workbookunu oluşturuyor, bazı kümelerde yönetim kurulunda yer alan firmalar
proje değerlendirme komitesinde de yer alabiliyor, bu küme yönetim kurulunda yer
alan firmalar Kobilerden gelen projelerin içinde yer almak isteyebiliyor, her
projeden haberdar oldukları için o tarz bir avantajı var: kimi zaman doğrudan
kendileri proje sunuyorlar, kimi zaman sunulan projeye kendileri ortak olmak
istiyorlar, ama dediğim gibi KOBİ’ler yönetim kurulunda yer alsın almaşın,
istedikleri kümeye proje sunabiliyorlar.
-
Yani büyüklerle oynamaktan çekinmiyorlar diyebiliriz bu durumda, değil mi?
-
Tabi ki, tabi ki aynen öyle.
-
Peki, bu özellikle ARGE alanında, ARGE alanları özellikle bilgi akışı ya da
knowledge leakaga dediğimiz olay bakımından, güven nasıl sağlanıyor özellikle
büyüklerle küçükler bir araya geldiklerinden. Küçükler diyor mu büyüklere bize bir
ait olan inovasyon kaptırma durumu olabiliyor mu?
-
Genel olarak zaten non-disclosure agreementlar ya da consortium agreementlar
imzalanıyor projeler başlamadan önce. Hatta proje başlamadan önce consortium
agreement, proje fikrinin paylaşılmasında consortium oluşturulması sırasında nondisclosure agreementlar imzalanıyor, dolayısıyla bir fikrin çalınması ya da projenin
tamamlanmasından sonra projenin sonunda çıkan yenilikçi urunun çalınması gibi bir
durum söz konusu olmuyor. Bu tarz hukuki anlaşmalarla bu proje fikirleri olsun, ya
da proje sonunda çıkan ürünler olsun güvence altına alinmiş oluyor
98
-
Yani resmi olarak güvence altına alıyor güven ortamı diyorsunuz
-
Evet, güven ortamı böyle sağlanıyor.
-
Peki, sizce Kobilerde özellikle, en büyük dezavantajı ne olabilir, dezavantajı var
midir bu cluster’larda yer almanın-ya da iyi bir şekilde bundan yararlanmak için ne
gibi özelliklere sahip olması lazım?
-
Kobilerin ilk finansın sağlanmasında bir sorun olabiliyor belki. Ama benim önerim
KOBİLER üzerinde yoğunlaşmak istiyorsanız Cluster’lardan ziyade Eurostars
Programina yoğunlaşmanız. Eurostars daha çok KOBİ’lere yönelik bir program.
-
Sizce coopetition’un geleceği ne olacak? 2 görüş var bu konuda, birincisi rekabetin
ağır basıp bu konseptin kısa sure uygulanan bir kavram olacağı yönünde, diğer
ikincisi ise gelişen koşulların coopetitionu daha da önemli kılacağı ve geleceğin
dominant stratejisi olacağına dair. Siz ne düşünüyorsunuz bu konuda?
-
Ben ikinci kısma inananlardanım, bakin Güler Sabancı mesela en büyük rakiplerden
biri olan SIEMENS yönetim kuruluna davet edildi. Günümüzde rakip firmaların
yönetim kurulu üyeleri birbirlerinin yönetim kurullarında yer alabiliyorlar. Rakipler
günümüzde işbirliği yapmak zorunda.
-
Peki, bu EUREKA projelerinde collaboration mu daha ağır basıyor, competition
mu?
-
Bu projenin yapısına, hazırlanana consortiumun nasıl sağlandığına bağlı olarak
değişiyor. Kimi projelerde daha competition ağır basarken diğerinde daha
collaboration bazlı olabiliyor.
-
Sizce KOBİ’lerle büyük şirketlerin arasındaki coopetition farklılıkları nelerdir?
-
Genel olarak baktığımızda KOBİ’ler yapıları gereğince daha esnekler, bu
coopetition formuna bürünmede, uyum sağlamada diyeyim. Tabi ki hem KOBİ hem
de büyük firmalarda coopeitionu gözlemliyoruz, çok da başarılı inovasyonlar çıkıyor
ortaya gerek Cluster’larda gerekse Eurostars projelerinde; ama bir bütün bir
genelleme olarak bakacak olursak; büyük firmalar önemli bir competency
gördüklerinde başka bir firmada; eğer alabiliyorlarsa satın alma yoluna gidiyorlartıpkı Google örneğinde olduğu gibi. Ya da kimi büyük şirketler kendileri gerekli
ARGE& Inovasyon çalışmalarını bağımsız olarak yapmak yoluna gidebiliyorlar.
Burada KOBİ’lerde o yüzden coopetitionu daha yaygın görüyoruz diyebilir miyiz,
diyebiliriz bence. Ha bunun yanında, Kobiler coopetitionda daha dinamikler, çünkü
diğer networklerle de yarışıyorlar patent alabilmek için. Büyük firmaların belki
hepsine patent verilebilir fakat küçük firmaların en iyisine veriliyor ve bunu
alabilmek en iyisi olabilmek için diğer networklerle de yarışıyorlar, bu yüzden
Kobiler coopetitionda daha dinamik daha aktifler diyebiliriz.
99
-Can you please talk about yourself? How long have you been working in EUREKA
and in this position?
- I am working within EUREKA Programs for 4 years. I started as EUREKA Project
Manager, then I have been the international project coordinator during the Chairmanships of
Germany, Israil, Hungary and Turkey. We finished our chairmanship year and shifted the
chairmanship to Norway. So I have been working for EUREKA actively for 4 years.
- Can you please talk about the EUREKA Clusters? How do they work, what is the
process, borders, etc?
- Clusters are one of the 3 important pillars of EUREKA. EUREKA Clusters are formations
which are active in a specific industry, and those clusters are formed around the large
companies of Europe. For instance ITEA2 Cluster, where ITEA3 Cluster will be its
successor next year; is founded by very important players such as Daimler and Airbus. The
aim of those clusters are those firms to come together and sharing the risks of the R&D
projects, and creating a network to be able to shape the future’s technologies. So we can say
that those clusters are networks who are active in a specific technology area. In those
networks, companies who are active in and perform research about similar areas come
together, and try to collaboratively create technologies.
Those clusters are not resource of funding, but just platforms. Countries support the firms
which present collective projects within those platforms. Turkey also provide funding to
cluster projects, I mean we have a separate budget especially for supporting those projects.
However, not every country (EUREKA member countries) supports those projects.
Every cluster has a separate calendar for calls. Every cluster accepts the projects aligned with
this calendar. Every cluster has a technical assessment committee. The projects received at
the calls are assessed by the international assessment first. If the project is found well-suited
to the strategic workbook of the cluster, it gains the cluster label. The projects which get
cluster labels apply for their own countries to take funding, because those projects are
supported by national fundings. Some countries directly provide funding to the projects once
they receive the cluster label. However a few countries, such as Turkey, also make their own
national assessment for the projects, and decide funding accordingly. So , if the national
100
assessment result is negative, even the project gets the cluster label, might not be able to get
the national funding. To conclude, projects have to positively pass both international and
national assessments.
-Do these clusters only consist of large companies? How about the SME’s? Are there
special clusters only for SMEs?
-No, there are no special clusters only for SMEs. SMEs also can apply for involving any
cluster projects they would like.
- Is that common?
-In fact, it is common. For instance, there are many Turkish SMEs apply for cluster projects,
especially to the ITEA Cluster. Each Cluster has its board of management, however those
boards are consist of the large players, not SMEs. There is no advantage of disadvantage of
participating in the board of management, in terms of the assessment of the projects. Firms at
the board of management create the strategic workbook of the cluster. Sometimes the firms
who involve in the board of management also involve in the Project Assesment Committee.
Sometimes those members might like to get involved in the projects presented by the SMEs.
So the only advantage of involving such commitees would be the getting to know about
projects in advance. Sometimes large firms directly present projects at the calls, and
sometimes-as I mentioned before- they would like to involve in the projects presented by
others. But as I mentioned, SMEs can apply for involving any projects: not getting involved
in board of management has nothing to do with that.
-So , can we say that small firms don’t have hesitation on playing with the big ones?
- Definitely, they do not.
- R&D is such a sensitive area in terms of the critical knowledge the firms keep. Don’t
the SMEs have any hesitation of being exploited in terms of the knowledge leakage?
How the trust environment is provided?
- Even before the projects start, Consortium Agreement and Non-disclosure Agreements are
signed. To be clear, Consortium agreement before the project starts, and non-disclosure
agreements before and during the projects are signed. So there would be no chance of an idea
leakage, or the stealth of the innovative product achieved in the end of the project. Those
kind of agreements get ideas and the innovative products under legal protection. This is how
the trust provided.
- What are the disadvantages of SMEs at involving those projects? Or in other words,
what do SMEs need to benefit the most of these clusters?
101
- There might be a problem to access to the initial funding, except that there are very capable
SMEs to involve in clusters very successfully and making important contributions in terms
of creating the innovative product. It is about the own capabilities of the firm and how
deploying those capabilities, how to work with other large and small companies.
However, if you are about focusing on SMEs only, I recommend you to focus on Eurostars
Programme, which is specially designed for SMEs. In Eurostars Programme, SMEs come
together for R&D projects.
-
What will be the future of coopetition you think? There are two main views about that.
First view is that coopetition will only be a contemporary concept and competition will
destroy coopetition, and the second view is that coopetition will get even more
important in the future and that coopetition will be the dominant strategy of future.
What do you think about that?
-
I believe in the second option, that coopetition will be the dominant strategy of the future.
Today, many competitors have to involve in coopetition. As an example, Guler Sabanci has
invited to the board of management to SIEMENS, where they are very big competitors
actually. Today even competitor board of management members get member exchange. So I
believe that coopetition will even increase.
-
Does competition or collaboration weight heavier in EUREKA projects?
-
It completely depends on the nature of the project, and how the consortium is shaped. In
some projects it is more competitive, and some of them are more collaborative.
-
What are the differences between the coopetition for SMEs and coopetition for large
companies?
-
In general, SMEs are more flexible and faster to adopt in coopetition. Of course we observe
very successful forms of coopetition both in SMEs and big companies, but if we make a
generalization by looking at overall picture; large companies prefer to buy the small
company once they realise a competency. Just like Google does. Or if the big company is
capable, it might prefer to perform all its R&D alone. So can we say that coopetition is more
widespread among SMEs, I think we might.
Indeed, SMEs are more dynamic and aggressive in terms of coopetition, as they also
compete with other networks to be able to get the label. Any big company project might
102
get the label, but for the small firms, they have to be the best one to be able to get the
label.
-
103
APPENDIX 7- EUREKA
Historcal Evolution of EUREKA
1985
1988
–
 Adoption of the Hannover Declaration outlining the
principles of the EUREKA framework.
 Establishment of procedures and infrastructure.
 Growth of Network including all Western Europe and
Turkey
 Generation of 221 new projects and creation of two
Umbrellas
1989 – 1995
 Opening to Central and Eastern Europe
 Creation of Lillehammer Award – First winner E!160
FERMSEP
 Generation of 887 projects and creation of three
Umbrellas
1996 – 2001
 Responding to globalisation
 Introduction of guidelines for Cluster projects
 Generation of 999 projects and creation of six
Umbrellas and eight Clusters
2001 – 2002
 Shaping the European Research Area
 Inventory of national evaluation procedures
 Generation of 171 projects and creation of two
Umbrellas
2002 – 2003
 Reaching a common understanding on the quality of
EUREKA projects
 Increasing the efficiency of EUREKA’s organization
and decision-making
 Proposing ‘New Safer Medicines Faster', a European
104
Research Area pilot project in biotechnology
 Generation of 168 projects and creation of one
Umbrella
2003 – 2004
 Working towards the EU 3% Barcelona objective
 Supporting SMEs through an agreement with a
European network of business angels
 Improving EUREKA’s decision-making procedures
(unanimity replaced by qualified majority)
 Generation of 206 projects and creation of six Clusters
2004 – 2005
 Marking 20 years of pan-European innovation
 Improving
complementarities with EU Research
Framework Programme
 Establishing
political and industrial dialogue to
improve overall EUREKA performance
 Setting up permanent independent external project
evaluation to strengthen EUREKA quality label
 Generation of 181 projects, 57 Cluster projects and
creation of three Umbrellas
2005 – 2010
 Launching
of
the
EUROSTARS
program
in
partnership with the European Commission
 EUREKA brings now together 40 members including
the European Union
(Resource: EUREKA Website)
105
EUREKA MEMBER COUNTRIES
Year of Joining
Country
1985
Austria,
Denmark
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Portugal
Norway
Spain,
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Turkey
European Commission
1986
Iceland
1992
Hungary
1993
Russian Federation
1994
Slovenia
1995
Czech Republic
Poland
1997
Romania
1999
Lithuania
2000
Israel
Latvia
Croatia
2001
Estonia
Slovak Republic
106
2002
Serbia
Cyprus
2005
Monaco
San Marino
2006
Malta
Ukraine
2008
Macedonia
2010
Bulgaria
2012
Montenegro
EUREKA Associated Countries
Canada
Republic of Korea
EUREKA Network Information Points
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
107
EUREKA UMBRELLAS
Umbrellas are thematic networks, focusing on specific technologic areas or industries, and
aim to increase and facilitate the formation of EUREKA projects. Umbrealla activities are
coordinated and implemented by EUREKA Representatives and industry experts (EUREKA
website)
UMBRELLA
OBJECTIVES
EUREKA Tourism
Bringing tourism, hospitality and culture
companies together, in terms of development
of tourism sector and development of service
technologies
Euro Agri Food Chain
Improve the position of agri-food sector by
supporting innovation and technologies
E!Surf
Fostering
cooperation
among
industrial
enterprises and research organisations in
order to developing new technologies in
surface engineering.
PRO-FACTORY
Development of R&D in manufacturing
technologies and robot-science; aiming to
increase competitiveness and sustainability
Eureka Build 2
Generating and Supporting Projects in
construction
area,
aiming
resource
efficiency, sustainability in transportation
and service netowrks, increasing job safety
and having more environmental friendly
solutions.
Resource: Umbrella Websites
108
SAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT
109
110
111
112
EUROSTARS CONSORTIUM SKELETON
113
114
115
116
A Sample Project Management Structure, from Celtic Plus
117
Eurostars Programme Funding excellence in innovation Eurostars
Application Assessment Guidelines, 2012
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Appendix 8: Turkish Airlines Financial Statement
134
135

Network Coopetition: An Empirical Analysis with

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

GRAMMAR SUBJECTS VOCABULARY Body Parts

enterprise europe