Rating: 
Summary: Great insights and an easy read!!!
Review: ...if only all books on game theory and strategy were written like this. The authors dissect a potentially confusing subject into easy, bite-sized chunks. Reads like a novel, and you can finish it in just one sitting.
Rating: 
Summary: What Game Theory has to offer in Business...
Review: ...is on the most pressing issues of it all: finding the right strategies and making the right decisions. Maybe a missed a lot on business education, but i never thought of complements. Or the effect of myself entering a market or not having an impact on the whole game. Not even in my MBA did we cover such profounde topic. The authors cover very well the ground of Game Theory applied to business and how companies cooperate in order to enlarge a market and that compete in splitting the market share. Very readable book, even though it gets a bit boring after reading half through.
Rating: 
Summary: A NYT op-ed on Co-opetition & a review from The Economist
Review:
TO succeed in business you have to outsmart the competition, capture the market, make a killing and then bury the
competition, right? Well, half right. Competitors aren't the whole picture. Providing complementary products -- or
making sure they are available -- is the other half of the game.
A complement to one product is any other product that makes the first one more, rather than less, attractive. Hardware
and software are complements. So are hot dogs and mustard, cars and car loans, cable television and TV Guide, the
Internet and high-capacity digital phone lines, catalogues and overnight delivery services -- even red wine and dry
cleaners, or Siskel and Ebert.
In new markets, paying attention to complements is a necessity. Without key complements, the market may never take
off. In established markets, attending to complements has less dramatic but still valuable results. Here, complements
most likely exist, but you can make your product more attractive by making the complements better, more plentiful and
less expensive.
Traditionally, business strategy has largely focused on competition -- Coke versus Pepsi -- and in the process
underplayed complements. There hasn't even been a word to describe providers of complementary products. So we
have created one: "complementor," the natural counterpart to "competitor."
Although you probably know your competitors, chances are you have thought less about your complementors. More
to the point, do you know which complementors are missing? Even a great product can sit on the shelf until key
complements are developed. You can't assume that the essential complements to your business are going to be there.
And if they are missing, you can't assume that the market will solve the problem. You have to work with others to
create them, or create them yourself.
Companies involved in today's information revolution are prime candidates for this focus on complements. A new
system of creating and sharing information is evolving, and it has many complementary parts. It is not enough to
invent one part of the new system; you have to pay attention to all the parts at once.
Intel understands this idea, and provides a lesson for every business. The company's engineers have done a brilliant
job of developing increasingly powerful computer chips. But the chip is only part of a larger system, and most of us
already have more processing power than we need to run our favorite applications. Thus, outpacing competing chip
makers is not enough: Intel must also engineer demand for its next-generation chips. So Intel is on the lookout for
complementors: It has teamed up with MCI to provide more bandwidth for networks. It is working with others to
develop interactive games on the World Wide Web.
Intel is even venturing outside its core business to insure that essential complements get off the ground. As desktop
videoconferencing takes off, so, too, will demand for Intel's newest chip, the Pentium Pro. That is why the company
has invested more than $100 million in developing Proshare, a video-phone product.
He point of all these initiatives is to promote applications that push the limits of processing power. Upgrading to
Intel's latest chip becomes a necessity, not a luxury.
There is a hundred-year-old analogue to Intel's strategy. At the turn of the century, the car was a technological
revolution. But the value of a car -- and hence the demand for one -- was severely limited by the lack of many essential
complementary products: roads, gas stations, mechanics and more. The fledgling auto makers did not leave the
development of these markets to chance. For example, through the Lincoln Highway Association, they helped
promote highway construction.
Some complements to the automobile already existed. One was loans -- but here, too, car makers took an active hand
in making them more accessible and attractive. First General Motors and then Ford set up operations (GMAC and
Ford Motor Credit) to make car loans directly to consumers and thereby fuel demand for their cars.
Entering a complementary business requires that companies do their accounting a little differently. You cannot measure
the profitability of the two businesses independently, nor can you demand that each pay its own way. The right
question to ask is whether you are maximizing the combined profitability of the two businesses. For example,
subsidizing Proshare makes sense for Intel: Increased sales of the Pentium Pro will more than make up for anything
the company loses on Proshare.
Of course, it is possible to have a complementary business that makes money. Over the last decade Ford has earned
more on car loans than on car sales. You can say that car loans help stimulate car sales, but you can also say that car
sales help stimulate demand for car loans. The fact is, with complements, you cannot look at one part of the business
in isolation. You have to look at the whole picture.
What businesses should you be in? With the fallout from the conglomerate era fresh in people's minds, the prevailing
wisdom is not to expand beyond your core business. People say, "Stick to your knitting." But this mantra is too
simplistic. It does no good to click your knitting needles if there is no demand for sweaters. You should get out of
your rocking chair and prod the market.
Managing complements is a smarter way of doing business, and there are endless possibilities. Michelin tires and
Michelin Guides; Ikea and play areas; Hallmark cards and in-store reading glasses; bookstores and coffee bars.
Identifying and assembling complements is often the best way to compete.
THE ECONOMIST, June 15, 1996, U.S. Edition
It's only a game
Managers have much to learn from game theory--provided they use it to clarify their thinking, not as a substitute for
business experience
FOR old-fashioned managers, business was a branch of warfare--a way of "capturing markets" and "making a
killing". Today, however, the language is all about working with suppliers, building alliances, and thriving on trust
and loyalty. Management theorists like to a thing as "win-win", and that business feuds can end up hurting both
parties. But this can be taken too far. Microsoft's success has helped Intel, but it has been hell for Apple Computer.
Instead, business needs a new way of thinking that makes room for collaboration as well as competition, for mutual
benefits as well as trade-offs. Enter game theory.
Stripped to its essentials, game theory is a tool
Decisions affect each other. Until the theory came along, economists assumed that firms could ignore the effects of
their behaviour on the actions of rivals, which was fine when competition was perfect or a monopolist held sway, but
was otherwise misleading. Game theorists argue that firms can learn from game players: no card player plans his
strategy without thinking about how other players are planning theirs.
Economists have long used game theory to illuminate practical problems, such as what to do about global warming or
about fetuses with Down's syndrome. Now business people have started to wake up to the theory's possibilities.
McKinsey, a consultancy, is setting up a practice in game theory. Firms as diverse as Xerox, an office-equipment
maker, Bear Stearns, an investment bank, and PepsiCo, a soft-drinks giant, are all interested. They will no doubt seize
on "Co opetition" (Doubleday, D because it is written by two of the leading names in the field, Adam Brandenburger,
of Harvard Business School, and Barry Nalebuff, of the Yale School of Management. It also helps by using readable
case studies rather than complex mathematics.
The main practical use of game theory, say the authors, is to help a firm decide when to compete and when to
co-operate.
Rating:
Summary: Groundbreaking!
Review: A great book that shows how to get paid to play the game by using game theory. Why should companies particpate in a game in which they aren't getting paid to play? This book has example after example of how some companies got paid to play the game and changed the way the game was played to their favor. The book doesn't dive into a deep explanation of game theory (pick up Mr. Nalebuff's, "Thinking Strategically : The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life" for that) but touches on the basics. Truly a new way for business decisions makers to think when "playing the game."
Rating:
Summary: very good
Review: A very good book about the application of game theory. Structured and easy to read. I think there may be more different examples. Anyway it is one of the best books I read lately.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good
Review: Amid competing among us and dividing up the pie, we can build a bigger one. That is what is all about in business and life, a constant game of interaction and competition. This book will surely become a classic book on business and economics.
Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended!
Review: Authors Adam M. Brandenburger and Barry J. Nalebuff understand that some business relationships are complementary, not competitive. Complementary relationships allow you to profit from another company's products or services. For example, a computer company can sell more hardware when a complementary company sells more software. The authors illustrate this clearly written book with examples of the strategic thinking and negotiating behind successful and unsuccessful game playing. You could cut to the chase by reading the capsule summaries, but we [...] advocate studying the examples if you plan on playing with the big kids.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good
Review: Businesses' competing in prices and quantities amid complementing by adding values is a healthy practice. This book teach us how to use this game framework to everyday business and life situations.
Rating:
Summary: Looking at the whole market to maximize your strategy
Review: Co-Opetition by Adam M. Brandenburger and Barry J. Nalebuff focuses on using competition to create a bigger market for the industry and for the individual company. It is an interesting approach to building win-win growth opportunities. The PARTS concept is an easy to remember idea that has been successful in several sited examples. Co-opetition discusses viable ideas that should be considered, particularly the "Pay me to play" suggestion. If the strategist carefully considers all options in the "big picture", they would undoubtedly use one or several of the ideas presented in this book. This book serves as a reminder manual when developing strategy.
Rating:
Summary: Stellar business strategies with real world examples!
Review: Co-opetition debuted before the net arrived commercially, however it could easily have been written about today's hyper-speed corporate environment. (Many companies in the Dot-bomb dead-pool may have benefited from this kind of rational strategic thinking.) As the title indicates, the book is about competition and cooperation in the marketplace. Much of that discussed in the book stems from game theory, determining what moves to make in a game (or marketplace) based on the anticipated actions of the other players. The book presents numerous case studies from a variety of businesses. Each example provides a background of the competitive environment, the implications of different possible moves, and ultimately explains the results of each particular decision. It's a fantastic book, and contains valuable lessons for decision-makers in virtually any capacity. Co-opetition is especially for those interested in game theory and business strategy. It brings to light the fact that no decision is made in isolation, and demonstrates that a win at all costs mentality is often not the most successful plan of action. Learn to analyze a situation, understand the scenarios that may result because of particular actions, move forward with a better understanding, and well thought out contingency plans for anticipated counter moves.
|
