竞争战略演化技术创新的影响——以江苏民营制造企业为例

基于江苏民营制造企业的问卷调查数据,在控制了地区和产业类别影响前提下,探讨同一情境下处于生命周期不同阶段企业取得竞争优势的竞争战略所构成的演化路径,并从技术创新视角揭示竞争战略演化的动因。研究表明,处于初创期、成长期、成熟期的企业,竞争战略呈现＂没有明确选择-低成本战略-差异化战略＂的演化路径。工艺创新对低成本战略演化有显著影响,产品创新对差异化战略演化有显著影响。总体上看,工艺创新是企业竞争战略演化的主要推动力。推进制造企业转型升级,需要加大产品创新力度,提升产品创新对竞争战略的影响。     

企业规模与创新技术选择

本文基于差异性产品市场的古诺模型,分析企业规模如何影响企业对产品创新和工艺创新两类创新技术的选择。理论模型显示,产品创新和工艺创新分别通过生产新产品和降低旧产品成本产生替代效应和规模经济效应。替代效应损失较高和规模经济使大企业倾向工艺创新;替代效应损失较低和规模不经济导致小企业倾向产品创新。利用中国高技术产业2004-2007年企业层面面板数据的经验分析结果显示,企业规模与中国高技术企业的创新技术选择间存在显著关系,大企业和中小企业分别倾向于工艺创新和产品创新,稳健性检验显示结果仍成立。经验研究还讨论了企业规模和产权性质对创新水平的影响,结果发现大企业的产品创新和工艺创新水平都高于中小企业,国有企业在产品创新倾向和水平上高于非国有企业。结论暗示,加强对中小企业的创新扶持可促使企业参与产品创新,对大企业重大创新扶持可提高创新水平。     

差异化、成本领先和价值创新——企业竞争优势的一个经济学解释

差异化战略和成本领先战略并不是两个相互排斥的战略,二者可以被一个企业同时采用以获取竞争优势.本文运用产品差异化模型考察成本相同和成本不同两种情况下企业的竞争行为,证明差异化战略和成本领先战略并不矛盾,指出差异化有利于企业避免恶性竞争,获取市场势力,而且当成本不同时,具有成本优势的企业能够获得更大的竞争优势并具有进一步成本领先的动机,具有成本劣势的企业则具有降低成本的动机和更强的差异化动机.本文讨论了价值创新是企业同时采用差异化和低成本以获取竞争优势的战略逻辑,并提出企业价值创新的风险和对策,从而给出了企业竞争优势的一个经济学解释.     

企业实施差异化战略研究

在当今激烈的市场竞争中,在“买方市场”条件下,企业必须站在顾客的立场上提供顾客需要的产品和服务,实施差异化战略,构筑企业竞争优势。差异化战略的内容包括:产品差异化、市场差异化、形象差异化和服务差异化。实施差异化战略存在风险。企业应以提升顾客价值为出发点,不断创新,以保持持续的竞争优势。     

差异化战略与竞争优势的可持续性——理论与案例研究

将产品本身的差异性引入霍特林模型,并以深圳华强北电子卖场和小米手机为案例对象,剖析了其差异化战略,从理论和案例两个方面对差异化战略形成的竞争优势的特点进行初步探索。结果显示:与低成本战略相比,差异化战略带给企业的是能实现可持续发展的竞争优势,能使企业在竞争中获得稳定的垄断势力,从而保持较高的盈利水平。最后提出企业实施差异化战略的建议。     

企业创新战略决策的决定因素——基于区域文化的视角

过往研究侧重分析区域文化对创新绩效的影响,忽略企业创新战略对两者的中介效应。使用层次回归模型研究区域文化对创新战略决策的影响,发现在个人主义文化环境中,企业倾向采取突破创新战略,而在集体主义文化环境中,企业倾向采取渐进创新战略;在承担风险文化环境中,企业倾向采取自主创新战略,而在规避风险文化环境中,企业倾向采取合作创新战略;在过程导向文化环境中,企业倾向采取流程创新战略,而在结果导向文化环境中,企业倾向采取产品创新战略;短期/长期导向文化维度对企业创新战略决策没有显著影响。企业应在创新决策前考虑区域文化因素,利用或者克服区域文化的积极或者消极影响。     

企业创新与企业竞争力

中国经济始终在矛盾中不断成长，一方面是中国产业国际竞争力不断提升，另一面是中国企业总是被认为“只依靠低成本竞争，缺乏创新能力”，因而社会各界都不断地对企业家呼吁“要提高创新能力，不能靠低成本竞争和价格战”。企业家似乎也都在讲创新的重要性，但我们看到更多的还是实施低成本战略和各行业的价格大战，而在自主技术创新上有突出表现的企业却少之又少。本文试图回答这样的问题：目前中国企业为什么缺乏创新能力和创新表现？为什么更多地选择低成本战略（和价格战）而不是差异化战略？     

企业产品创新战略的博弈分析

文章基于一个需求足够大、消费者偏好多样化的双寡头垄断市场,研究企业产品创新战略的选择问题,企业通过提高产品差异化追求其利润的最大化。应用两阶段博弈模型,第一阶段企业选择产品差异化程度,第二阶段选择产品价格,同时考虑产出对市场竞争的重要意义,分析了均衡的战略选择。结果表明,当两企业的成本和产品差异程度之间符合特定的关系时,企业应选择不同的产品战略。     

基于纵向差异化的价值创新战略

本文从客户价值与成本两个维度对价值创新战略进行了分析，提出了基于纵向差异化的价值创新战略，即通过提高产品或服务质量来提升客户支付意愿。这往往需要增加成本。然而，客户价值的增加要超过企业的增量成本，进而能够实现企业价值的最大化（简称为高端战略）。在我国已经具有过剩经济特征，并正向全面小康社会发展的大背景下，高端战略具有重要的实践价值。本文对高端战略与蓝海战略（同时实现产品横向差异化和降低成本）的成本收益的权衡进行了比较，最后，通过典型案例的分析，对高端战略的实施路径进行了讨论。     

浅谈高新技术企业产品研发与企业战略的有效匹配

高新技术企业是知识和技术密集的经济实体。产品研发与企业战略的有效匹配是其实现核心竞争力提升的关键因素之所在。文章从界定高新技术企业、产品研发、企业战略等概念入手,重点分析了产品研发与企业战略的关系,进而提出了实施低成本战略的企业应该选择外部化研发组织形式、采用差异化战略的企业应该选择内部化研发组织形式的观点。     

Demand and innovation in productivity growth

The labour productivity impact of demand and innovation is investigated in this paper combining insights from the Kaldorian and Schumpeterian traditions. After a review of studies in such traditions, a general model is proposed for explaining productivity growth in European manufacturing and service industries in the late 1990s, followed by two distinct specifications for the industries oriented toward product innovation, and for those where process innovation dominates. The empirical analysis is based on the match of the SIEPI‐CIS2 database developed at the University of Urbino and Eurostat Input–Output Tables at the industry level, for 22 manufacturing sectors and 10 services sectors. Six European countries are considered: Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The results show that productivity growth in European industries can be explained by a combination of technology factors and demand dynamics, confirming the complementarity of technology and demand effects. On the demand side, household consumption emerges as the most pervasive component of demand, able to stimulate greater efficiency in all manufacturing and service industries. Investment also has a role, focused however on the capital goods producing industries. On the technology side, the mechanisms of productivity growth are fundamentally different in the industries oriented towards product innovation and in those dominated by process innovation. This evidence supports the view that innovation in firms and industries can be associated to two contrasting strategies, searching either for technological competitiveness, through knowledge generation, product innovation and expansion of new markets, or aiming at greater cost competitiveness, through job reductions, labour saving investment, flexibility and restructuring.     

Competition vs. collaboration in the generation and adoption of a sequence of new technologies: a game theory approach

The study provides a game theoretic exploration of firms’ decisions on whether to compete or collaborate in the generation and adoption of a sequence of new technologies. Different from models proposed by previous studies, which concentrates on process innovation and a two-strategy set (innovation or do nothing), the present game theory model emphasises product innovation and a three-strategy set (innovation, collaboration, or do nothing). The study makes three contributions. The proposed game theory model extends current understanding of the impacts of collaboration possibilities and collaboration cost in a dynamic game theory. Further, the model clarifies the impact of transaction costs on the outcome. Finally, the study finds that the relationship between collaboration costs is not univariate, but depends on the market type and various market characteristics, such as technology gap, technology level, the product substitution index, transaction costs, and the discount rate of price sensitiveness.     

Configurations of innovation: predictable and maverick modes

This study reports on an investigation of modes of innovation in 43 firms in six industrial sectors: (i) pulp and paper; (ii) computer. services; (iii) pharmaceucticals; (iv) apparel; (v) metallic products; and (vi) financial brokerage services. A model incorporating context, process, strategy, organization and performance variables was built to serve as a base to identify empirical conjfigurations of models of innovation. Configurations are gestalts of variables that describe particular modes of innovative behaviour. The model includes uariables representing context, process, strategy, organization and performance. Modes of innovations were found to he highly sector-specific. In fact, most firms innovate in predictable ways, in conformity with the logic of innovation in their industrial environment. A significant minority of firms, however, adopt maverick behaviours, similar to modes of innovation that prevail in other industries. Modes of innovation thus cut across industry lines as a result of firm's combetencies, competitive situationes or managerial preferences. A taxonomy of modes of innovation cutting across industry lines is presented. The configurations which emerged from the data analysis were: science-based product innovators; (ii) entrepreneurial fast-track experimenters; (iii) global cost leaders; (iv) lethargic reliance on information technology and (v) on process adaptation.     

Is newest always best? Firm-level evidence to challenge a focus on high-capability technological (product or process) innovation

This paper sets out to address a gap in the empirical literature on the importance of ‘low-capability’ innovation for firms. The study is framed around discussion of the conceptual bias that remains in policy and academic literature towards a narrow subset of technological (product or process) innovation labelled ‘high-capability’ innovation in this paper. The paper argues that this bias influences the public and business community's understanding of the term ‘innovation’ and has implications for innovation measurement, research, policy and strategy. The study uses data from an economy-wide, regional innovation survey based on the Oslo manual, and includes 648 innovative firms covering all industry sectors. The paper combines elements of both subject and object approaches to innovation measurement, using data from an open-ended survey question to explore the alignment between what firms report as their ‘most important innovation’ (MII) and firm capabilities for introducing ‘high-capability’ technological innovation. Results show that a substantial share of firms report an MII that is a ‘low-capability’ innovation, including those firms with high R&D intensity, those with novel technological innovation, and firms in more innovative sectors of manufacturing and knowledge intensive business services. The paper discusses the implications of this result for future innovation measurement and research.     

The effects of transformational leadership,competitive intensity and technological innovation on performance

This study aims to determine the three-way interaction effects of transformational leadership, technological innovation (i.e. product and process innovation) and competitive intensity on firm performance by detecting three-way interactions involving slope differences in moderated multiple regression. Based on a sample of 182 manufacturing enterprises in China, this paper finds that firms under transformational leadership are more likely to conduct process innovation, that the joint effect of the interaction between process innovation and competitive intensity is negatively related to firm performance and that the joint effect of the interaction between transformational leadership and competitive intensity is positively related to firm performance. Accordingly, this paper concludes that a firm should conduct more process innovation in a moderately competitive environment, but it should conduct less process innovation in a fiercely competitive environment, where in stronger transformational leadership should be adopted.     

Configurations of innovation: predictable and maverick modes

This study reports on an investigation of modes of innovation in 43 firms in six industrial sectors: (i) pulp and paper; (ii) computer. services; (iii) pharmaceucticals; (iv) apparel; (v) metallic products; and (vi) financial brokerage services. A model incorporating context, process, strategy, organization and performance variables was built to serve as a base to identify empirical conjfigurations of models of innovation. Configurations are gestalts of variables that describe particular modes of innovative behaviour. The model includes uariables representing context, process, strategy, organization and performance. Modes of innovations were found to he highly sector-specific. In fact, most firms innovate in predictable ways, in conformity with the logic of innovation in their industrial environment. A significant minority of firms, however, adopt maverick behaviours, similar to modes of innovation that prevail in other industries. Modes of innovation thus cut across industry lines as a result of firm's combetencies, competitive situationes or managerial preferences. A taxonomy of modes of innovation cutting across industry lines is presented. The configurations which emerged from the data analysis were: science-based product innovators; (ii) entrepreneurial fast-track experimenters; (iii) global cost leaders; (iv) lethargic reliance on information technology and (v) on process adaptation.     

银行服务创新战略分析：基于浙江调查

针对银行服务创新战略问题,采用简单定量分析方法,选取在浙银行为研究样本,对创新目标、创新方向、创新模式和创新领域四个要素进行系统分析。结果表明,浙江的银行根据自身的特点形成了各具特色的银行服务创新战略:总体上,浙江银行业以提升服务质量为创新目标进行有意识、系统化、基于市场信息的创新活动,并制定了市场细分和差异化战略,进而实行产品创新;其中,非国有银行和区域性银行以扩大市场份额为创新目标,采取定制化战略模式;在创新领域上,非国有银行重视产品创新,区域性银行重点进行营销创新。     

中国情形下企业创新的要素及选择机制

本文参考国内外有关创新影响因素的研究,结合调查问卷的结果,总结归纳出我国企业自主创新路径中的关键因素,这些关键因素包括管理层自主创新意愿、企业文化的创新程度、组织学习水平、创新投入水平、组织对创新的激励程度、技术机会能力和市场定位能力等。在确定了这些关键因素之后,本文进一步探讨这些因素之间的相互关系,认为在创新过程中,各要素从战略、组织行为和能力这三个层面形成一种彼此促进的机制,它决定着企业的创新方式和创新绩效,企业应根据自己的战略、能力和现有的技术状况,选取二次创新、集成创新和原始创新等适合自己的方式和方法,确保技术研发、新产品市场化以及后续发展这三个环节形成良性循环并最终完成自主创新。     

Policy mix to foster innovation in the Dominican Republic: attempts from an empirical perspective

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to understand firms’ preferences for incentives to foster innovation in Dominican firms. A key research question arises: What are the most preferred science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy options to support innovation in Dominican firms? This research relies on the concept of policy mix and the conjoint analysis to support the empirical approach. Over 300 firms were surveyed across the country, and we discovered that Dominican firms prefer more complex STI policy options, including at the same time research grants, guarantee funds, and tax incentives to support several kinds of innovative activities. But also, firms need to understand the potential of available options such as tax credit and other monetary instruments, including guarantee funds. It is concluded that in the medium and long term, the STI policy mix approach could support as part of the Dominican policy agenda, an economic transition toward a more resilient and competitive economy.