Rivals make the best partners for new technology, study finds

What 400 managers were asked

Source: NEOMA Business School press release distributed via ResponseSource on behalf of BlueSky Education, 22 September 2026.

Research from NEOMA Business School, published in the Journal of Operations Management, examined how companies choose partners for new technology development. The work is by Professor Dina Ribbink of NEOMA, Tingting Yan of Texas Tech University's Rawls College of Business and Hubert Pun of Western University's Ivey Business School. The researchers began with 17 in-depth interviews with experienced managers to identify the criteria that shape partner selection. They then tested how those criteria are prioritised with a sample of 400 managers in a hypothetical scenario.

In that scenario, participants acted as procurement director of a leading US car manufacturer choosing a partner to develop a new propulsion system. The choice was between a competitor and a supplier. The setup allowed the researchers to observe which partner type managers favoured and which factors drove the decision. The findings challenge the assumption that suppliers are the natural default for co-development work. According to the researchers, collaborating with rivals can be highly productive when companies develop new cutting-edge technologies.

What the 400 managers chose

The researchers found that competitors were more likely to be selected if they had a strong foothold in the target market and if their products posed little risk of substituting those of the contracting firm. The degree of technological innovation was of little importance in the managers' decisions. In other words, a rival's existing market position and the low threat of product substitution carried more weight than how novel the technology was. The three criteria identified from the interviews were tested in the scenario, and these two factors emerged as the priorities.

Professor Ribbink said a rival with a strong market presence is a more credible partner because such firms have already shown they can design, manufacture and market innovative solutions. That credibility signal appears to matter more to managers than the novelty of the technology itself. The research suggests that when a competitor has proven it can operate in the target market, managers see less risk in working with that rival than with an untested supplier. The findings were published in the Journal of Operations Management (doi 10.1002/joom.70042).

What it means for UK businesses

For UK SMEs in manufacturing, software and services, co-development with a rival is a live option rather than an unusual one. The research indicates that the credibility signal managers look for is market track record, not novelty. A competitor that already sells into the target market and whose products do not directly replace the firm's own offerings may be viewed as a safer partner than a supplier with no market presence. This matters for smaller firms that may lack the internal capacity to develop new technology alone.

The study also suggests that innovation level alone will not persuade a partner to sign. Managers in the scenario placed little weight on how cutting-edge the technology was. For UK SMEs, that means the case for a co-development deal may rest on demonstrating market presence and showing that the arrangement will not cannibalise the partner's existing products. The researchers' findings point to market foothold and substitution risk as the factors that tip the decision. Firms considering this route should assess how a potential rival partner is positioned in the target market before entering discussions.

Before signing a co-development agreement

UK SMEs considering co-development with a competitor should raise several points with an adviser before signing. These include intellectual property ownership, confidentiality, competition-law limits on information sharing between competitors, and exit terms. The research does not address legal or contractual matters, and nothing here constitutes legal advice. The practical value of the study is in showing that rival partnerships are a recognised route for new technology, which makes the legal and commercial groundwork more important, not less.

On IP ownership, the question is who owns what is developed and how rights are licensed. On confidentiality, the concern is protecting sensitive commercial information while sharing enough to collaborate. Competition-law limits matter because information sharing between competitors can raise regulatory issues. Exit terms determine what happens if the partnership ends or if one party wants to withdraw. Each of these areas benefits from professional advice tailored to the specific deal. The researchers' work suggests that the partner selection decision itself may hinge on market foothold and substitution risk, so those commercial factors should be assessed alongside the legal points.

Source: Journal of Operations Management: the study.

Related coverage on Kael Tripton: Business Finance Brokers on The Desk, Business Finance Brokers on The Desk, Back Office Management Software: UK Business Software Guide, Software For Contractors: UK Business Software Guide, Buying or selling a small business in the UK: tax, TUPE, insurance and the due diligence checklist.

Frequently asked questions

Who conducted the research on rival co-development partnerships?

The research is by Professor Dina Ribbink of NEOMA Business School, Tingting Yan of Texas Tech University's Rawls College of Business and Hubert Pun of Western University's Ivey Business School. It was published in the Journal of Operations Management.

How many managers took part in the study?

The researchers identified three key selection criteria from 17 in-depth interviews with experienced managers. They then tested how those criteria are prioritised with a sample of 400 managers in a hypothetical scenario.

What scenario did the managers face?

Participants acted as procurement director of a leading US car manufacturer choosing a partner to develop a new propulsion system. The choice was between a competitor and a supplier.

What made managers more likely to choose a competitor?

Competitors were more likely to be selected if they had a strong foothold in the target market and if their products posed little risk of substituting those of the contracting firm. The degree of technological innovation was of little importance in the managers' decisions.

What should UK SMEs check before a co-development deal?

Points to raise with an adviser include IP ownership, confidentiality, competition-law limits on information sharing between competitors, and exit terms. The research does not cover legal or contractual matters, and this is not legal advice.