:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:產品元件創新擴散模式中競合策略與網路效應之角色探討
作者:游孝元
作者(外文):Shiau-yuan You
校院名稱:國立高雄第一科技大學
系所名稱:管理研究所
指導教授:陳彥銘
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:動態路徑競合網路外部性產品差異度產品元件創新擴散產品策略產品相容性DifferentiationCompatibilityCoopetitionComponent Innovation DiffusionNetwork ExternalityDynamic pathProduct Strategy
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:52
在許多科技密集產業中,由於市場競爭激烈及產品複雜度愈來愈高,導致公司專精於新產品中某些特定元件(Component)或技術的開發及更加仰賴價值鏈中其他互補產品供應者或產品元件製造商,也因此產品元件的創新擴散是否成功端視產品元件創新者與其他供應商互動結果而定。
本文除了檢視產品網路效果外,對競合(Coopetition)策略在產品元件創新擴散過程的影響也做了探討,研究對象以具備模組化產品結構、垂直差異化及具網路外部性等特徵的產業為主,例如智慧型手機、互動式軟體及媒體播放器等,首先我們建立一個微分賽局模式,其中包含在具有網路外部性的產品市場環境中,公司於產品元件創新擴散時經常會採用的各種不同競爭及合作方式,例如產品相容性、產品差異度、產品品質及產量等,然後利用描繪抵達穩定點的動態路逕鑑別這些方式對產品元件創新擴散過程的影響。透過這些分析可知,當產品網路外部性強時,不論產品元件創新擴散採分散式或集中式競合策略,產品相容度及產品品質對「將餅做大」的競合精神均為負面影響因子,而產品差異度對其為正面影響因子,而且在產品網路外部性不強及產品相容度亦不高的情況下,產品元件創新廠商較偏好集中式競合策略,這些結論提供了許多科技產業廠商於選擇產品元件創新擴散策略時一個可能的方向。
In many technology-intensive industries, intensifying competition and increasing complexities of offerings, firms become specialized in specific components or technological aspects in new product development and more dependent on other value-chain contributors such as providers of complementary and component technologies. Therefore, a successful introduction of component innovation may be determined by the inter-firm relationships.
In this context, we specifically examine not only the benefits of the increased network externalities, but also the innovator''s ability to pursue both competitive and cooperative strategies simultaneously. We focus our analysis on industries that are characterized by modular product architectures, vertically differentiated products and network externalities. e.g. smart phones, interactive software, media players, etc. First, we contruct a differential game model includes the different coopetition approaches, such as compatibility, differentiation and production strategy, that firms adopt while diffusing their technologies to competitors in a networked environment. Next we identify the impact of those approaches on the trade-off between the increased competition and network benefits by drawing dynamic path to the stable point. Our results suggest that firms will create a bigger value together while competing to gain a larger portion of the value if innovator is less willing to share her component technology with higher product homogeneous and lower product quality when the strength of network externality is strong in both cases of decentralized coopetition and centralized coopetition. Further, if strength of network externality and innovator''s product compatibility are sufficienitly small, the innovator will prefer to have a centralized coopetition strategy. This interaction between component innovators and competitors offers a potential orientation for many technological firms engage in diffusing component innovation.
Almeida-Costa, L., Dierickx, I., 2002. Licensing and bundling. International journal
of industrial organization 20 (2), 251-267.
Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A., 2001. Markets for technology and their
implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and corporate change 10 (2), 419-451.
Arranz, N., Fdez de Arroyabe, J., 2008. The choice of partners in r&d cooperation:
An empirical analysis of spanish rms. Technovation 28 (1-2), 88-100.
Baake, P., Boom, A., 2001. Vertical product di erentiation, network externali-
ties, and compatibility decisions. International Journal of Industrial Organization
19 (1), 267-284.new window
Bayus, B., 1987. Forecasting sales of new contingent products: An application to the
compact disc market. Journal of Product Innovation Management 4 (4), 243-255.
Bayus, B., Kim, N., Shocker, A., 2000. Growth models for multiproduct interactions:
Current status and new directions. New-product di usion models, 141-163.
Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., 2000. Coopetition in business networksxto cooperate and
compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management 29 (5), 411-426.
Bental, B., Spiegel, M., 1995. Network competition, product quality, and market
coverage in the presence of network externalities. The Journal of Industrial Eco-
nomics, 197-208.
Breznitz, D., 2009. Globalization, coopetition strategy and the role of the state
in the creation of new high-technology industries. Coopetition strategy: theory,
experiments and cases 47, 103.
Chiang, D., Teng, C., 2001. Pricing strategies with network externalities between
two groups of customers. NTU Management Review 12 (1), 1-36.new window
Choi, J., 1994. Network externality, compatibility choice, and planned obsolescence.
Journal of Industrial Economics 42 (2), 167-82.
Chou, C., Shy, O., 1990. Network e ects without network externalities. International
Journal of Industrial Organization 8 (2), 259-270.
Chou, C., Shy, O., 1993. Partial compatibility and supporting services. Economics
letters 41 (2), 193-197.
Church, J., Gandal, N., Krause, D., 2003. Indirect network effects and
adoption externalities. Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working
Paper No. 02-30. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=369120 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.369120.
Cohen, W., Klepper, S., 1996. Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product r&d. The review of Economics and
Statistics, 232-243.
Conner, K., 1995. Obtaining strategic advantage from being imitated: When can
encouraging clones pay? Management Science, 209-225.
Conner, K., Rumelt, R., 1991. Software piracy: an analysis of protection strategies.
Management Science, 125-139.
Contractor, F., Lorange, P., 2002. Cooperative strategies in international business:
joint ventures and technology partnerships between rms. Emerald Group Publishing.
Costa, L., Dierickx, I., 2005. The strategic deployment of quality-improving innovations*. The Journal of Business 78 (3), 1049-1072.
Dagnino, G., Padula, G., 2002. Coopetition strategy: a new kind of inter rm dynamics for value creation. In: Innovative Research in Management, European Academy
of Management (EURAM), Second Annual Conference, Stockholm, May. Vol. 9.
Daveni, R., Gunther, R., 2007. Hypercompetition. managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. Das Summa Summarum des Management, 83-93.
Dekimpe, M., Parker, P., Sarvary, M., 1998. Staged estimation of international diffusion models: An application to global cellular telephone adoption. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 57 (1), 105-132.new window
Dhebar, A., Oren, S., 1985. Optimal dynamic pricing for expanding networks. Marketing Science, 336-351.
Dockner, E., Jorgensen, S., Long, N. V., Sorger, G., 2000. Di erential Games in Economics and Management Science. Cambridge University Press.
Doganoglu, T., Grzybowski, L., 2007. Estimating network e ects in mobile telephony
in germany. Information Economics and Policy 19 (1), 65{79.new window
Duysters, G., Kok, G., Vaandrager, M., 1999. Crafting successful strategic technology partnerships. R&D Management 29 (4), 343-351.
Economides, N., 1996a. The economics of networks. International journal of indusrial organization 14 (6), 673-699.
Economides, N., 1996b. Network externalities, complementarities, and invitations
to enter. European Journal of Political Economy 12 (2), 211-233.
Economides, N., Himmelberg, C., 1995. Critical mass and network evolution in
telecommunications. In: Toward a competitive telecommunications industry: Selected papers from the 1994 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Erkal, N., 2005. Optimal licensing policy in di erentiated industries*. Economic
Record 81 (252), 51-60.
Farrell, J., Saloner, G., 1985. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The
RAND Journal of Economics, 70-83.
Farrell, J., Saloner, G., 1986a. Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product
preannouncements, and predation. The American Economic Review, 940-955.
Farrell, J., Saloner, G., 1986b. Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product
preannouncements, and predation. The American Economic Review, 940-955.
Fauli-oller, R., Sandonis, J., 2003. To merge or to license: implications for competi-
tion policy. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (5), 655-672.
Fosfuri, A., Roca, E., 2004. Optimal licensing strategy: Royalty or xed fee? Inter-
national Journal of Business and Economics 3 (1), 13-19.new window
Gallini, N., Winter, R., 1985. Licensing in the theory of innovation. The RAND
Journal of Economics, 237-252.
Gans, J., Stern, S., 2003. The product market and the market for idea. Research
policy 32 (2), 333-350.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., 1993. Changing competitive dynamics in network
industries: An exploration of sun microsystems'' open systems strategy. Strategic
Management Journal 14 (5), 351-369.
Grajek, M., 2004. Estimating network e ects and compatibility in mobile
telecommunications. ESMT Working Paper No. 07-001. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=501325 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.501325.
Gupta, S., Jain, D., Sawhney, M., 1999. Modeling the evolution of markets with indi-
rect network externalities: An application to digital television. Marketing Science,
396-416.
Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within in-
ternational strategic alliances. Strategic management journal 12 (S1), 83-103.
Hauser, J., Shugan, S., 1983. Defensive marketing strategies. Marketing Science,
319-360.
Horsky, D., 1977. An empirical analysis of the optimal advertising policy. Manage-
ment Science, 1037{1049.
Horsky, D., Simon, L., 1983. Advertising and the di usion of new products. Marketing Science, 1-17.
Jorde, T., Teece, D., 1989. Competition and cooperation: Striking the right balance.
California Management Review 31 (3), 25-37.
Katz, M., Shapiro, C., 1985. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility.
The American economic review 75 (3), 424-440.
Katz, M., Shapiro, C., 1986a. How to license intangible property. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 101 (3), 567-589.
Katz, M., Shapiro, C., 1986b. Technology adoption in the presence of network ex-
ternalities. The journal of political economy, 822-841.
Kauffman, R., McAndrews, J., Wang, Y., 2000. Opening the black box of network
externalities in network adoption. Information Systems Research 11 (1), 61-82.new window
Kauffman, R., Techatassanasoontorn, A., 2005. International diffusion of digital mobile technology: A coupled-hazard state-based approach. Information Technology
and Management 6 (2), 253-292.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., Nohria, N., 1998. The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic management journal 19 (3),
193-210.
Kim, J., Parkhe, A., 2009. Competing and cooperating similarity in global strategic
alliances: An exploratory examination. British Journal of Management 20 (3),
363-376.
Kim, N., Bridges, E., Srivastava, R., 1999. A simultaneous model for innovative
product categorysales diffusion and competitive dynamics. International Journal
of Research in Marketing 16 (2), 95-111.
Kristiansen, E., 1998. R&d in the presence of network externalities: Timing and compatibility. The RAND Journal of Economics, 531-547.
Lado, A., Boyd, N., Hanlon, S., 1997. Competition, cooperation, and the search for
economic rents: a syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 110-141.
Leoncini, R., 2001. Segmentation and increasing returns in the evolutionary dynamics of competing techniques. Metroeconomica 52 (2), 217-237.
Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S., Gilbert, R., Griliches, Z., 1987.
Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings
papers on economic activity 1987 (3), 783-831.
Luo, Y., 2007. A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World
Business 42 (2), 129-144.
Mahajan, V., Peterson, R., 1978. Innovation diffusion in a dynamic potential adopter
population. Management Science, 1589-1597.
Malueg, D., Schwartz, M., 2006. Compatibility incentives of a large network facing
multiple rivals*. The Journal of Industrial Economics 54 (4), 527-567.
Matutes, C., Regibeau, P., 1988. " mix and match": product compatibility without
network externalities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 221-234.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., 1986. Network organizations : new concepts for new
forms. California Management Review 28 (3), 53-66.
Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., 1994. Complementarities and systems: Understanding
japanese economic organization. Estudios Economicos, 3-42.
Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., 1995. Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and
organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of accounting and economics
19 (2), 179-208.
Mobile, V., 2011. Mobile platforms: The clash of ecosystems. Tech. rep., Tech. rep.,
Vision Mobile.
Modis, T., 1997. Genetic re-engineering of corporations. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 56 (2), 107-118.
Mosca, S., Viscolani, B., 2004. Optimal goodwill path to introduce a new product.
Journal of optimization theory and applications 123 (1), 149-162.new window
Nalebuff, B., Brandenburger, A., 1996. Co-opetition. HarperCollinsBusiness.
Nault, B., Vandenbosch, M., 1996. Eating your own lunch: Protection through
preemption. Organization Science, 342-358.
Nerlove, M., Arrow, K., 1962. Optimal advertising policy under dynamic conditions.
Economica, 129-142.
Oum, T., Zhang, A., Zhang, Y., 2004. Alternative forms of economic regulation
and their efficiency implications for airports. Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy (JTEP) 38 (2), 217-246.
Park, S., Russo, M., 1996. When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history
analysis of joint venture failure. Management science, 875-890.
Peres, R., Muller, E., Mahajan, V., 2010. Innovation diffusion and new product
growth models: A critical review and research directions. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 27 (2), 91-106.
Porter, M., 1998. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors: with a new introduction. Free Pr.
Prahalad, C., Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review 68 (3), 79-93.
Purohit, D., 1994. What should you do when your competitors send in the clones.
Marketing Science 13 (4), 392-411.
Quintana-Garcia, C., Benavides-Velasco, C., 2004. Cooperation, competition, and
innovative capability: a panel data of european dedicated biotechnology firms.
Technovation 24 (12), 927-938.
Rockett, K., 1990. The quality of licensed technology. International Journal of In-
dustrial Organization 8 (4), 559-574.
Sethi, S., 1977. Dynamic optimal control models in advertising: a survey. SIAM
review, 685-725.
Shapiro, C., Varian, H., 1999. Information rules: a strategic guide to the network
economy. Harvard Business Press.
Shepard, A., 1987. Licensing to enhance demand for new technologies. The RAND
Journal of Economics, 360-368.
Shy, O., 1995. Industrial organization: theory and applications. The MIT press.
Shy, O., 2011. A short survey of network economics. Review of Industrial Organiza-
tion 38 (2), 119-149.
Stremersch, S., Tellis, G., Franses, P., 2007. Indirect network effects in new product
growth. Marshall School of Business Working Paper No. MKT 01-07.
Sun, B., Xie, J., Cao, H., 2004. Product strategy for innovators in markets with
network effects. Marketing Science, 243-254.
Tellis, G., Yin, E., Niraj, R., 2009. Does quality win? network effects versus quality
in high-tech markets. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (2), 135-149.
Tether, B., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis.
Research policy 31 (6), 947-967.
Thorelli, H., 1986. Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic manage-
ment journal 7 (1), 37-51.new window
Thun, J., Grossler, A., Milling, P., et al., 2000. The diffusion of goods considering
network externalities: a system dynamics-based approach. In: Proceedings of 18th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, August. pp. 6-10.
Van den Bulte, C., Stremersch, S., 2004. Social contagion and income heterogeneity
in new product diffusion: A meta-analytic test. Marketing Science, 530-544.
Walley, K., 2007. Coopetition: An introduction to the subject and an agenda for
research. International Studies of Management and Organization 37 (2), 11-31.
Xie, J., Sirbu, M., 1995. Price competition and compatibility in the presence of
positive demand externalities. Management Science, 909-926.
Yoshino, M., 1996. Strategic alliances: an entrepreneurial approach to globalization.
Harvard Business School Press.
Zhang, Z., 2003. Mutualism or cooperation among competitors promotes coexistence
and competitive ability. Ecological Modelling 164 (2-3), 271-282.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top