Great challenges often require the combined strength of various actors. Especially in areas that are shaped by fast technological development such as the application of additive manufacturing (AM) in life sciences, the interplay of different fields of expertise, including experts from industry, academia and government, is needed. While the collaboration of diverse actors can constitute a vast potential for innovations, it also entails a major challenge to negotiate among diverse individual interest, backgrounds, beliefs, and value systems. One field of research that can help to understand the consequences of such differences in the interests and beliefs in organizational settings is the institutional logics perspective. Institutional logics account for broader institutional value systems that guide actors’ cognition and actions. When organizations embody multiple logics, scholars speak of logic multiplicity. However, the consequences for organizational functioning that arise from logic multiplicity are still discussed among scholars, ranging from an enhanced innovativeness, to an increased conflict potential and organizational dismiss. In order to better understand logic interaction and its implications for organizational functioning, an embedded-case study was conducted. The embedded-case study focused on AddLife at Uppsala University, a competence center in its early phases of formation which is concerned with the advancement of applications of AM in life sciences. Based on semi-structured interviews and documentational data, three different logics were captured for three main stakeholder groups in AddLife. Further, the interaction of these logics during the early phases of competence center formation was analyzed, corroborating the role of logic compatibility (whether logics imply consistent goals). This study’s findings suggest that common goals have been found in AddLife, but some differences regarding the different logics’ implied goals remain, stressing the role of active mediation. Further, the study suggests that building strong intra-organizational ties is pivotal during the early phases of competence center formation, proposing a framework that encompasses three main approaches to build such ties. The first approach is to create a sense of community, including to reinforce synergies, to ensure engagement, and to connect projects. The second approach is to establish an open communication flow which comprises to clarify roles, to encourage asking questions, and to match expectations. Finally, the third approach is to organize personal meetings in order to establish relationships in the first place and to enable discussions.