臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：網路系絡下之平台發展策略
作者：周志隆
作者(外文)：Chih-Lung Chou
校院名稱：臺灣大學
系所名稱：商學研究所
指導教授：江炯聰
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2005
主題關鍵詞：平台策略；網路效應；.NET；i-mode；iTunes；iPod；Platform Strategy；Network Effects；.NET；i-mode；iTunes；iPod
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:57
既有的平台策略文獻中，區隔市場的方式不適用於具有網路效應的市場。既有文獻將市場依據消費族群以及他們對功能水準與價格的不同需求加以區隔。採行平台策略的廠商可以組裝平台模組與針對不同市場區隔所設計的互補組件，有效率地設計多樣產品把握市場機會。然而，對於資訊與通訊技術領域的新產品或服務而言，相容性通常比功能水準或價格更具基本價值，而且互補組件與衍生產品的設計與提供乃由一群廠商分散決策，採行平台策略並不一定可獲得競爭優勢，例如IBM OS/2與Netscape Navigator。在具有網路效應的市場中，假設廠商皆已採行傳統之平台策略，其個別策略對網路效應的掌握將影響平台的成敗。本研究旨在提出一考量網路效應的平台發展管理架構，使廠商經由管理步驟獲得競爭優勢。
此管理架構乃根據網路效應理論，以及在網路環境下近期興起之平台的個案研究結論所建構。所選個案包括Microsoft .NET，NTT DoCoMo i-mode，以及Apple iTunes/iPod。此管理架構強調平台廠商應把握自行提供使用者互動功能的機會，藉直接網路效應創造價值；以及處理間接網路效應之市場雙邊性，亦即同時面對交互影響的消費者市場與互補組件市場，平台廠商應藉相容性決策引入其他平台之網路利益，引導互補組件之設計與提供，管理平台上多元互補組件之供需與交易，在創新的動態過程中確保平台領導地位。管理架構中反覆的管理步驟連結成正向迴饋的因果關係，使平台策略的利益能因網路效應而自我增強。
本研究提出平台策略的新觀點，將平台策略的研究推及具有網路效應的市場，對平台發展提出較先前文獻更具體的實務建議。本研究個案之代表性可將研究成果推及未來網際網路上組合軟體，無線通信，與內容產業的各式新平台發展之研究。
The way the existing literature on platform strategy treats the market is inappropriate to deal with markets with network effects. In the literature, the market is segmented by customer groups and their tiers of needs of performance and price. With platform strategy, designers can assemble platforms and complements designed for target market segments to derive product variations for catching market opportunities efficiently. However, for new products of information and communication technology (ICT), compatibility is often of more fundamental value than performance and price, the complements and derived products are developed and marketed by a group of technologically and commercially interdependent companies, and thereby conventional platform strategy may not lead to competitive advantage through internal efficient product design. For example, IBM OS/2 and Netscape Navigator are finely designed platforms but failed. Supposing the contester for a market with network effects applies conventional platform strategy, the fit between its strategy and the network context will affect the outcome of the platform. The purpose of this research is to develop a framework for managing the platform development under the network context. Through the management steps, the platform provider shall obtain competitive advantage based on network effects.
The managerial framework is constructed based on network economics and conclusion of case studies on strategies of representative emerging platforms, including Microsoft .NET, NTT DoCoMo i-mode, and Apple iTunes/iPod. The managerial framework emphasizes creating value by in-house designing functions with direct network effects, and dealing with the two-sidedness of the market with indirect network effects. That is, when facing buyers and sellers holding each other back, the new platform provider shall break the interlock by importing network benefits from other platforms with compatibility decisions, channeling the innovation of complementors, managing the demand and supply for diverse complements, and keeping the platform leadership in the dynamic process of system innovation. The iterative management steps seek to complete loops of positive feedback for the benefits of platform strategy to self-reinforce.
For practitioners, this research makes more concrete and actionable suggestions than previous platform strategy literature. The representative cases are helpful to following researches on new platforms emerging from the convergence of software, mobile telecom, and digital content on the Internet infrastructure.
References
1.Arthur, W. B. (1989), “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events,” The Economic Journal, 99: 116-131.
2.Arthur, W. B. (1990), “Positive Feedbacks in the Economy,” Scientific American, 262: 92-99.
3.Arthur, W. B. (1996), “Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,” Harvard Business Review, Jul.-Aug.: 100-109.
4.Austin, R. D. and R. L. Nolan (2000), “IBM Corporation Turnaround,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-600-098.
5.Baldwin, C.Y. and K. B. Clark (1997), “Sun Wars: Competition within a Modular Cluster, 1985-1990,” in D. B. Yoffie, (ed.), Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
6.Baldwin, C.Y. and K. B. Clark (1997), “Managing in an Age of Modularity,” Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct.: 84-93.
7.Baldwin, C.Y. and K. B. Clark (2000), Design Rules Volume I, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
8.Barney, J. B. (1999), “How a Firm’s Capabilities Affect Boundary Decisions,” Sloan Management Review, Spring: 137-145.
9.Bradley, S. (2002), “NTT DoCoMo (A): The Future of Wireless Internet?” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-701-013.
10.Brandenburger, A. M. and B. J. Nalebuff (1995), “The Right Game: Use Game Theory to Shape Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, Jul.-Aug.:57-71.
11.Brusoni, S. and A. Prencipe (2001), “Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organization,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 10, No. 1: 179-205.
12.Chandler Jr., A. D. (2001), Inventing the Electronic Century: The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries, The Free Press, New York.
13.Chapman, M. R. (2003), In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters, Apress, Berkeley, CA.
14.Chesbrough, H. W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
15.Chesbrough, H. W. (2000), "Designing Corporate Ventures in the Shadow of Private Venture Capital," California Management Review, 42(3): 31-49.
16.Chesbrough, H. W. and D. J. Teece (1996), "Organizing for Innovation," Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb.: 65-73.
17.Christensen, C. M. and R. S. Rosenbloom (1995), “Explaining Attacker’s Advantage: Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics, and the Value Network,” Research Policy 24: 233-257.
18.Christensen, C. M., F. F. Suarez, and J. M. Utterback (1998), "Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries," Management Science Vol. 44, Iss. 12: 207-220
19.Cusumano, M. A. and D. B. Yoffie (1999), “What Netscape Learned From Cross-Platform: Software Development,” Communication of the Acm, Vol. 42, No.10, October: 72-78.
20.Economides, N. (1996), “The Economics of Networks,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 14(6): 673-699.
21.Einhorn, M. A. (1992), “Mix and Match Compatibility with Vertical Product Dimensions,” RAND Journal of Economics, 23(4): 535-547.
22.Evans, P. B. and T. S. Wurster (1997), “Strategy and the New Economics of Information,” Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct.: 71-82.
23.Farhoomand, A. (2003), “NTT DoCoMo: Establishing Global 3G Standards,” Centre for Asian Business Cases, The University of Hong Kong.
24.Farrell, J. and G. Saloner (1985), “Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation,” Rand Journal of Economics, Spring, 16: 70-83.
25.Farrell, J. and G. Saloner (1986), “Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 76, 5: 940-955.
26.Farrell, J. and G. Saloner (1992), “Converters, Compatibility, and Control of Interfaces,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(1): 9-35.
27.Fleming, L. and O. Sorenson (2003), “Navigating the Technology Landscape of Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter: 15-23.
28.Gandal, N., S. Greenstein, and D. Salant (1999), “Adoptions and Orphans in the Early Microcomputer Market,” Journal of Industrial Economics, XLVII: 87-105.
29.Gandal, N., M. Kende, and R. Rob (2000), “The Dynamics of Technological Adoption in Hardware/Software Systems: The Case of Compact Disc Players,” Rand Journal of Economics, 31(1): 43-61.
30.Garud, R. and A. Kumaraswamy (1995), “Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution,” Strategic Management Journal Vol. 16, Iss. Special Issue: 93-109.
31.Gawer, A. and M. A. Cusumano (2002), Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
32.Gerstner Jr., L.V. (2002), Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance ?, HarperBusiness, New York.
33.Giusto, R., K. Burden, A. Slawsby, R. Sealfon, and D. Linsalata (2003), “Technology Assessment: Competitive Pressures and Consumer Preferences Drive New Mobile Device Product Directions,” IDC #29652.
34.Grindley, P. (1995), Standards, Strategy and Policy: Cases and Stories, Oxford University Press, New York.
35.Hagel III, J. (2002), Out of the Box: Strategies for Achieving Profits Today and Growth Tomorrow through Web Services, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
36.Hagel III, J. and J. S. Brown (2001), “Your Next IT Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, October: 105-113.
37.Hailstone, R. (2002), “Industry Developments and Models: Who’s Behind the Standards Behind Web Services?” IDC #28563.
38.Henderson, R. M. and K. B. Clark (1990), “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguring of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly 35(March): 9-30.
39.Hung, C. (2000), “Architecture Competition and Diffusion Mechanism of System Products － A Case of Wireless Communication System,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Collage of Business Administration, National Taiwan University, TW.
40.Iansiti, M. and A. MacCormack (1997), “Developing Products on Internet Time,” Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct.: 109-117.
41.Kalakota, R. and M. Robinson (2002), “Breakthrough Platform Strategies,” “Mobile Application Infrastructure,” “New Innovation Opportunities: Mobile Portals,” M-Business: The Race to Mobility, McGraw-Hill.
42.Kambil, A. and E. van Heck (2002), Making Markets: How Firms Can Design and Profit from Online Auctions and Exchanges, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
43.Katz, M. and C. Shapiro (1985), “Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility,” American Economic Review, Vol. 75(3): 424-440.
44.Katz, M. and C. Shapiro (1986), “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 96(4): 822-841.
45.Katz, M. and C. Shapiro (1994), “Systems Competition and Network Effects,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.8, No.2, Spring: 93-115.
46.Kevorkian, S. (2002), “Audio Innovation: 2002 Digital Audio Survey Results,” IDC #28638.
47.Kevorkian, S. (2003), “All Together Now: Recent Developments and Partnerships in the Paid MSP Market,” IDC #30508.
48.Krishnan, V. and K. T. Ulrich (2001), “Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature,” Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, January: 1-21.
49.Kwak, M. (1998), “The Browser Wars, 1994-1998,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-798-094.
50.Langlois, R. N. and P. L. Robertson (1992), “Networks and Innovation in a Modular System: Lessons from the Microcomputer and Stereo Component Industries,” Research Policy, 21: 297-313.
51.Liebowitz, S. J. and S. E. Margolis (2001), Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, Revised Edition, The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA.
52.Maccormack, A. and K. Herman (2002), “Microsoft .NET,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-602-086.
53.Mcafee, A. P. (2003), “Web Services and Systems Integration Supplementary Note,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-603-101.
54.McGahan, A. M., L. L. Vadasz, and D. B. Yoffie (1997), “Creating Value and Setting Standards: The Lessons of Consumer Electronics for Personal Digital Assistants,” in D. B. Yoffie, ed., Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
55.McGrath, M. E. (2001), Product Strategy for High-Technology Companies: Accelerating Your Business to Web Speed, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill.
56.Meyer, M. H. and A. P. Lehnerd (1997), The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership, The Free Press, New York.
57.Meyer, M. H. and R. Seliger (1998), “Product Platforms in Software Development,” Sloan Management Review, Fall: 61-74.
58.Meyer, M. H. and P. C. Mugge (2001), “Make Platform Innovation Drive Enterprise Growth,” Research Technology Management, Jan.-Feb.: 25-39.
59.Mohr, J. (2001), Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations, Prentice-Hall.
60.Moon, Y. (2002), “NTT DoCoMo: Marketing i-mode,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-502-031.
61.Moon, Y. and K. Herman (2003), “Online Music Distribution in a Post-Napster World,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-502-093.
62.Moore, G. A. (1995), Inside the Tornado: Marketing Strategies from Silicon Valley’s Cutting Edge, HarperBusiness, New York.
63.Morris, C. R. and C. H. Ferguson (1993), “How Architecture Wins Technology Wars,” Harvard Business Review, Mar.-Apr.: 86-95.
64.Moschella, D. (2003), “Web Services and Semantic Applications,” Customer-Driven IT: How Users Are Shaping Technology Industry Growth, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
65.O’Grady, P. (1999), The Age of Modularity, Adams and Steele Publishers.
66.Patil, S. and S. Saigal (2002), “When Computers Learn to Talk: A Web Services Primer,” The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1.
67.Pisano, G. P. (1990), “The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35: 153-176.
68.Quinn, J. B. (2000), “Outsourcing Innovation: The New Engine of Growth,” Sloan Management Review, Summer: 13-28.
69.Ratliff, J. M. (2002), “NTT DoCoMo and Its i-mode Success: Origins and Implications,” California Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, Spring: 55-71.
70.Robertson, D. and K. Ulrich (1998), “Planning for Product Platforms,” Sloan Management Review, Summer: 19-31.
71.Rochet, J. C. and J. Tirole (2002), "Cooperation among Competitors: Some Economics of Payment Card Associations," RAND Journal of Economics, 33(4): 549-570.
72.Rochet, J. C. and J. Tirole (2003), “Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4): 990-1029.
73.Rochet, J. C. and J. Tirole (2004), “Two-Sided Markets: An Overview,” IDEI Working Papers 2145, Institut d''Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
74.Rogers, E. M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, the fourth edition, The Free Press, New York.
75.Rohlfs, J. H. (2001), Bandwagon Effects in High-Technology Industries, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
76.Rukstad, M. G. and D. B. Yoffie (2002), “Microsoft in 2002,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-702-411.
77.Sanchez, R. (1995), “Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition,” Strategic Management Journal, 16: 135-159.
78.Sanchez, R. and J. T. Mahoney (1996), “Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design,” Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 63-76.
79.Sanchez, R. (1999), "Modular architectures in the marketing process," Journal of Marketing Vol. 63: 92-111.
80.Sanchez, R. and R. P. Collins (2001), “Competing - and learning - in modular markets,” Long range planning, 34(6): 645-667.
81.Sanchez, R. (2004), “Creating Modular Platforms for Strategic Flexibility,” Design Management Review, Winter: 58-67.
82.Sanderson, S. and M. Uzumeri (1995), “Managing Product Families: The Case of the Sony Walkman,” Research Policy, 24(5): 761-782.
83.Shapiro, C. and H. R. Varian (1998), Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.
84.Schilling, M. A. (2000), “Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity,” Academy of Management Review, 25: 2 (2000): 312-334.
85.Shy, O. (2001), The Economics of Network Industries, Cambridge University Press.
86.Stabell, C. B. and O. D. Fjeldstad (1998), “Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage: on Chains, Shops, and Networks,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19: 413-437.
87.Suarez, F. F., and J. M. Utterback (1995), "Dominant Designs And the Survival of Firms," Strategic Management Journal Vol. 16, Iss. 6: 415-430.
88.Teece, D. J.(1987), “Capturing Value from Technological Innovation: Integration, Strategic Partnering, and Licensing Decisions,” Technology and Global Industry, The National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
89.Ulrich, K. T. (1995). “The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,” Research Policy 24: 419-440.
90.Urban, G. L. and J. R. Hauser (1980), Design and Marketing of New Products, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood, NJ.
91.Utterback, J. M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
92.Uzumeri, M. and S. Sanderson (1995), “A Framework for Model and Product Family Competition,” Research Policy, 24: 583-607.
93.Whang, J. (2001), “i-Mode: NTT DoCoMo’s Wireless Data Service,” Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Case# SGSCMF-002-2001.
94.Witt, U. (1997), “Lock-in vs. Critical Masses: Industrial Change under Network Externalities,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 15: 753-773.
95.Wood, R. C., M. L. Tushman, and C. O’Reilly III (2001), “ IBM Software Solutions (A)” and “IBM Software Solutions (B),” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-402-016 and #9-402-017.
96.Wu, E. (2003), “Open Platform Marketing,” speech slides in K. T. Li Lecture Series in Technology Markets and Marketing, Dec. 20, National Taiwan University.
97.Yoffie, D. B. and M. A. Cusumano (1999), “Building a Company on Internet Time: Lessons from Netscape,” California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, Spring: 8-28.
98.Yoffie, D. B., R. Casadesus-Masanell, and S. Mattu (2003), “Wintel (A): Cooperation or Conflict?” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-704-419.
99.Yoffie, D. B. and D. Freier (2004), “Apple Computer, 2004” and “Music Downloads,” Harvard Business School Press, Case #9-704-460 and #9-704-503.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：822（臺灣：803，外國：19） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2393369 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68195213
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上