grad-coopetition
用 Value Net 和 PARTS 框架設計對同一批對象又合作又競爭的策略
中文翻譯
---
name: "grad-coopetition"
description: "用 Co-opetition Value Net 框架（Brandenburger 和 Nalebuff，1996）描繪商業關係中的合作與競爭動態。當使用者需要找出互補者、分析 PARTS 框架，或設計對同一批對象既合作又競爭的策略時，就用這個 skill。"
metadata:
category: "WP-24 創新與國際化"
tags: ["coopetition", "value-net", "brandenburger-nalebuff", "PARTS-framework", "complementors", "game-theory-strategy"]
---
# Co-opetition：Value Net（Brandenburger & Nalebuff，1996）
## Overview
Co-opetition 認為商業關係從來不是純競爭，也不是純合作。Value Net 模型延伸了 Porter 對競爭對手的關注，加進互補者，也就是那些產品會提高你產品價值的玩家。PARTS 框架（Players、Added value、Rules、Tactics、Scope）提供一套結構化的方法，讓你改變遊戲，而不只是照規則玩。
## When to Use
**觸發條件：**
- 使用者在分析一段同時有合作與競爭的關係
- 使用者問到和競爭對手的策略聯盟
- 使用者需要找出互補者，或描繪價值網路中的所有玩家
- 使用者提到「frenemy」、「coopetition」、「complementors」或「value net」
**When NOT to use：**
- 純競爭分析 -> 用 Porter 五力
- 組織內部的平衡 -> 用 grad-ambidexterity
- 國際市場的進入模式 -> 用 grad-oli
## Assumptions
```
IRON LAW: Every Business Relationship Contains BOTH Cooperative
and Competitive Elements
There is NO purely competitive or purely cooperative relationship.
A supplier cooperates (provides inputs) AND competes (captures margin).
A competitor competes (takes share) AND cooperates (grows the category).
Any analysis that labels a player as ONLY competitor or ONLY partner
is incomplete. Always map BOTH dimensions.
```
- 商業是一場遊戲，但玩家可以改變遊戲，而不只是玩遊戲
- 創造價值靠合作，取得價值靠競爭
- 同一個玩家可以同時是競爭者和互補者
## Methodology
### Step 1: Map the Value Net
把焦點公司放在中心，標出四種玩家：客戶、供應商、競爭者（其產品會降低你的價值）、互補者（其產品會提高你的價值）。關鍵洞察：一個玩家可以同時扮演多個角色（Samsung 供應顯示器給 Apple，同時也賣競爭的手機）。
### Step 2: Assess Added Value
對每個玩家計算 added value：
- **Added value** = 有該玩家時的遊戲總價值，減去沒有該玩家時的遊戲總價值
- 玩家能取得的價值，絕不會超過他的 added value
- 策略應該以提高你自己的 added value，並管理其他人的 added value 為目標
### Step 3: Apply PARTS Framework
有系統地評估五個改變遊戲的槓桿：
| Lever | Question | Action |
|-------|----------|--------|
| **Players** | 誰在這場遊戲裡？該不該加入或移除玩家？ | 引進新的互補者，吸引新的競爭者來降低供應商的議價力 |
| **Added value** | 怎麼提高我們的 added value？ | 做出差異化、建立轉換成本、培養忠誠客戶 |
| **Rules** | 什麼規則在管這場遊戲？我們能改嗎？ | 契約、法規、產業標準、MFN 條款 |
| **Tactics** | 認知怎麼影響遊戲？ | 訊號傳遞、承諾、透明或製造迷霧 |
| **Scope** | 這場遊戲的邊界在哪？ | 把遊戲串起來或切開，擴大或縮小範圍 |
### Step 4: Design Co-opetition Strategy
針對每個關鍵關係，明確指出：
- 在哪裡合作（創造價值）：共同研發、制定標準、擴張市場
- 在哪裡競爭（取得價值）：定價、獲客、差異化
- 邊界規則：哪些資訊要分享，哪些要保護
## Output Format
```markdown
# Co-opetition Analysis: {Focal Firm}
## Value Net Map
- Customers / Suppliers / Competitors / Complementors: {list each, note dual roles}
## Added Value Assessment
| Player | Added Value | Leverage |
|--------|-------------|----------|
| {Focal firm} | {assessment} | {high/medium/low} |
## PARTS Analysis
| Lever | Current State | Recommended Change |
|-------|---------------|-------------------|
| Players / Added value / Rules / Tactics / Scope | {current} | {action} |
## Co-opetition Strategy
- Cooperate on: {activities} | Compete on: {activities} | Boundary rules: {policy}
```
## Gotchas
- **找出互補者最難**：逼自己問：「誰的產品讓我的產品更有價值？」最大的洞察都藏在這裡。
- **雙重角色會產生張力**：當夥伴同時也是競爭者，要明確定義資訊邊界。
- **Added value 是動態的**：每個重大動作都會改變所有人的 added value。產品上市或進入新市場後要重新評估。
- **沒有邊界的合作會造成知識外洩**：聯盟需要明確的 IP 防火牆。
- **PARTS 的重點是改變遊戲**：如果你的分析只描述了目前的遊戲，就是沒抓到重點。
## References
- 想了解 co-opetition 的賽局理論基礎，見 `references/coopetition-game-theory.md`
- 想了解 PARTS 框架的詳細應用指南，見 `references/parts-framework-guide.md`英文原文
---
name: "grad-coopetition"
description: "Apply the Co-opetition Value Net framework (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996) to map cooperative and competitive dynamics in business relationships. Use this skill when the user needs to identify complementors, analyze the PARTS framework, or design strategies that simultaneously cooperate and compete with the same players."
metadata:
category: "WP-24 創新與國際化"
tags: ["coopetition", "value-net", "brandenburger-nalebuff", "PARTS-framework", "complementors", "game-theory-strategy"]
---
# Co-opetition: The Value Net (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996)
## Overview
Co-opetition recognizes that business relationships are never purely competitive or purely cooperative. The Value Net model extends Porter's focus on rivalry by adding complementors — players whose products increase the value of yours. The PARTS framework (Players, Added value, Rules, Tactics, Scope) provides a structured approach to changing the game rather than just playing it.
## When to Use
**Trigger conditions:**
- User is analyzing a relationship that is simultaneously cooperative and competitive
- User asks about strategic alliances with competitors
- User needs to identify complementors or map all players in a value network
- User mentions "frenemy", "coopetition", "complementors", or "value net"
**When NOT to use:**
- For pure competitive analysis -> use Porter's Five Forces
- For internal organizational balance -> use grad-ambidexterity
- For international market entry mode -> use grad-oli
## Assumptions
```
IRON LAW: Every Business Relationship Contains BOTH Cooperative
and Competitive Elements
There is NO purely competitive or purely cooperative relationship.
A supplier cooperates (provides inputs) AND competes (captures margin).
A competitor competes (takes share) AND cooperates (grows the category).
Any analysis that labels a player as ONLY competitor or ONLY partner
is incomplete. Always map BOTH dimensions.
```
- Business is a game — but players can change the game, not just play it
- Value creation is cooperative; value capture is competitive
- The same player can be a competitor AND a complementor simultaneously
## Methodology
### Step 1: Map the Value Net
Place the focal firm at the center and map four player types: Customers, Suppliers, Competitors (whose products DECREASE your value), and Complementors (whose products INCREASE your value). Key insight: a player can occupy multiple roles (Samsung supplies displays to Apple AND sells competing phones).
### Step 2: Assess Added Value
For each player, calculate added value:
- **Added value** = Total value of the game WITH the player MINUS total value WITHOUT the player
- A player can never capture more than their added value
- Strategies should aim to increase YOUR added value and manage others'
### Step 3: Apply PARTS Framework
Systematically evaluate five levers to change the game:
| Lever | Question | Action |
|-------|----------|--------|
| **Players** | Who is in the game? Should we add/remove players? | Bring in new complementors, attract new competitors to reduce supplier power |
| **Added value** | How can we increase our added value? | Differentiate, build switching costs, create loyal customers |
| **Rules** | What rules govern the game? Can we change them? | Contracts, regulations, industry standards, MFN clauses |
| **Tactics** | How do perceptions shape the game? | Signaling, commitments, transparency vs fog |
| **Scope** | What is the boundary of the game? | Link or de-link games, expand or narrow scope |
### Step 4: Design Co-opetition Strategy
For each key relationship, specify:
- Where to cooperate (value creation): joint R&D, standard setting, market expansion
- Where to compete (value capture): pricing, customer acquisition, differentiation
- Boundary rules: what information to share, what to protect
## Output Format
```markdown
# Co-opetition Analysis: {Focal Firm}
## Value Net Map
- Customers / Suppliers / Competitors / Complementors: {list each, note dual roles}
## Added Value Assessment
| Player | Added Value | Leverage |
|--------|-------------|----------|
| {Focal firm} | {assessment} | {high/medium/low} |
## PARTS Analysis
| Lever | Current State | Recommended Change |
|-------|---------------|-------------------|
| Players / Added value / Rules / Tactics / Scope | {current} | {action} |
## Co-opetition Strategy
- Cooperate on: {activities} | Compete on: {activities} | Boundary rules: {policy}
```
## Gotchas
- **Complementor identification is the hardest part**: Force yourself to ask: "Whose product makes mine more valuable?" The biggest insights hide here.
- **Dual roles create tension**: When a partner is also a competitor, define explicit information boundaries.
- **Added value is dynamic**: Every major move changes everyone's added value. Reassess after launches or market entries.
- **Cooperation without boundaries leads to knowledge leakage**: Alliances need explicit IP firewalls.
- **PARTS is about changing the game**: If your analysis only describes the current game, you missed the point.
## References
- For game theory foundations of co-opetition, see `references/coopetition-game-theory.md`
- For PARTS framework detailed application guide, see `references/parts-framework-guide.md`