The impact of coopetition-based open innovation on performance in nonprofit sports clubs

ABSTRACT

Research question: This study conceptualizes and tests the impact of a coopetition-based open innovation approach on organizational performance of nonprofit sports clubs. In particular, it examines the effect of collaborations with competitors (i.e. coopetition) on the organizational performance of clubs via both use of outside knowledge and the adoption of new services, processes, and business models (i.e. organizational-level innovations).

Research methods: A statewide online survey with 292 members of the board of directors of nonprofit sports clubs was conducted in Germany (Saarland). The survey used valid and reliable scales and considered self-reported financial stability and membership development as organizational performance indicators. Structural equation modeling was applied to test the mediation model.

Results and findings: The proposed coopetition-based open innovation model has a good model fit. Engagement in coopetition has a positive effect on organizational performance via two sequential mediators: use of outside knowledge and innovation implementation. In addition, use of outside knowledge has a direct positive effect on organizational performance.

Implications: Nonprofit sports clubs should take advantage of collaborations with competitors and exploit external knowledge to the best of their abilities. The adoption of new services, processes, and business models on the organizational level helps nonprofit sports clubs stay competitive in an increasingly contested sports services market. The study provides both theoretical and managerial implications that help sports clubs innovate and increase organizational performance.

KEYWORDS:

• Coopetition
• open innovation
• organizational performance
• nonprofit sports clubs
• external knowledge

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The nonprofit sports clubs considered in the study are voluntary-lead nonprofit organizations. We note that these organizations are allowed to have part-time or full-time paid staff as long as their nonprofit status is maintained. Here, and in what follows, any reference to sports clubs refers to these types of nonprofit organizations.

2 We used this measurement tool for two reasons. First, a subjective relative-innovation approach, comparing clubs with other clubs, would be difficult to answer for most club representatives as they do not have the necessary insight into the degree to which other clubs have innovated in the past. This is particularly problematic when considering organization-level process innovations. Second, for clubs that rank tradition and sociability as top goals (Nagel, 2008), the strategy of ‘doing nothing’ on the innovation front could even be perceived as being more desirable (one could also say ‘innovative’) than being a late adopter or laggard (Goldsmith & Foxall, 2003). We tried to avoid this bias by using the measure described before and in Appendix 1.

3 Regarding the financial dimension of organizational performance, nonprofit sports clubs are not legally permitted to make profit for any purpose other than the societal goals mentioned in the statutes. We used one item to capture financial stability self-evaluation. The higher the ratings are, the higher the perceived financial stability (which is positive from the club’s perspective). The membership development dimension was assessed via another item, with higher ratings indicating a more favorable membership development (which is also positive). Such rating scales have been used in a wide variety of studies, including service performance assessments (Tsiotsou, 2009), and they have been shown to be convergent with objective measures (Dawes, 2000).