企业兼容竞争的博弈分析

本文以双寡头博弈模型为基础，考察了产品兼容对企业价格和利润的影响，就在位企业和新进入企业如何利用兼容策略增强其竞争力进行了分析。本文的结论是，借助于历史销售优势和适当的兼容策略，优势企业可以设置策略壁垒来阻止潜在进入者的进入和胁迫市场内的竞争对手退出市场，劣势企业也可以凭借生产兼容性能相当优越或单向兼容的产品参与市场竞争。     

CS市场营销新策划

各国企业在市场竞争中大都经历过实施产品质量控制（QC）、企业形象设计优（CI）等战略阶段。目前正兴起一种新的名为顾客满意的战略（StrategyofCustomerSatisfaction），简称CS战略。在国际上CS战略正逐渐取代CI战略。CS战略与CI战略不同，它不只侧重于塑造企业和品牌等形象，而强调企业经营活动要以顾客满意为宗旨，通过满足顾客需要的产品和服务来实现企业的经营目标。满足顾客需要是全方位的。企业在产品开发设计时要以顾客要求为依据；价格制定时要考虑顾客承受力；营销点的建立要以方便顾客为准则；售后服务要能使顾客最大限…     

两个品牌让企业根基常青

品牌可以为企业保持和吸引顾客、实现销售收入和利润、阻击竞争对手、获取竞争优势。但是,曾几何时在市场上“叱咤风云”的产品一旦消失,企业也随之消亡。问题出在了什么地方？主要是由于紧盯着产品品牌,没有将强大的产品力量转化为相应的企业力量,忽略了企业品牌。那么,如何去平衡这两者之间的关系呢？     

商品的差异性和企业外在利润的来源

本文认为利润是企业成长的关键，而商品的定位是赢得利润和战胜竞争对手的源泉，重新回到以商品为逻辑起点的分析可能有助于我们更加认清竞争优势的本质。本文在评议竞争优势两种主要观点的基础上提出：商品的层次性、兼容性和商品产权性质三大差异性是企业外在利润的源泉，三级匹配对指导现实中的企业进行商品定位具有一定的实践意义。     

基于网络外部性的价值模块整合与兼容性选择

本文分析了价值模块的网络外部性特征，并基于网络外部性研究了价值模块整合过程中的兼容性选择和价格竞争行为。研究结果表明：当由进入厂商选择兼容度时，兼容性越高进入厂商的市场份额越大，并能够获得更高的市场价格；当由在位厂商选择兼容度时，兼容度增加将减少消费者的转移成本，使更多的模块需求商转向购买进入厂商的产品，减少了在位厂商的市场份额；当转移成本的兼容性敏感系数较低时，在位模块供应商能够获得更高的价格，而当转移成本对兼容性很敏感时，较高的兼容度将迫使在位模块供应商降低价格。价值模块的网络外部性加剧了模块供应商之间的竞争，进一步促进了价值模块整合和产业融合的过程。     

兼容性经济学研究的发展

兼容性是网络产业和网络经济的重要特征，在网络产业发展和改革的关键时期研究兼容性的相关经济问题很有意义。本文对兼容性相关概念、兼容性实现方式、企业兼容性战略和兼容性的政策意义等问题进行了分析。     

产品兼容、网络效应与企业竞争力

在网络效应较强的产业中，技术设置的兼容性是左右企业成长的关键因素。随着技术进步、新兴产业的发展和市场竞争的加剧，产品兼容、网络效应对企业竞争力具有越来越重要的意义。在计算机、电信、银行、旅游、媒体、软件等产业中，用户在购买时十分注重产品或服务的兼容性和网络效应。本文以差异产品竞争模型为基础，考察了产品兼容、网络效应对企业竞争力的影响，就在位企业和新进入企业如何利用这两个产品差异变量增强其竞争力进行了分析。     

电力企业文化与战略管理

企业文化建设与品牌战略、企业形象战略、顾客满意战略、顾客关系管理、公共关系、员工激励、员工绩效评价、管理沟通方式融为一体，由于企业文化作用于这些战略设计的每一个过程，包容以上所有管理力量，形成企业的基础管理平台，即企业文化战略管理。其具体管理内容包括：　　设计企业理念；设计、管理品牌，维护品牌；改善服务理念、提升客户满意度；进行员工沟通、顾客沟通、社会公众及组织沟通，处理抱怨、投诉、意见与建议，解决危机公关；优化企业领导人的行为模式、管理模式；以人为本，设计员工激励模式，进行员工绩效考评；管理…     

战略视角下矿山企业价值链多维优化分析

战略管理是矿山企业的中心工作．分析和优化企业的价值链是企业战略管理的关键因素。矿山企业创造价值的途径可以从“企业价值链”、“产业价值链”以及“竞争对手价值链”等方面进行。企业内部价值链着重分析矿山企业各环节之间的关系,优化经营过程;外部产业价值链通过将矿山企业价值链和供应商、顾客价值链连接在一起分析,专注于矿山“战略环节”的核心优势,改进产品生产、技术和方法等。最后,通过将矿山企业价值链和竞争对手价值链的对比分析,找出和竞争对手在各价值链环节上成本和价值的差异,为矿山的价值创新提供指导,制定战略,战胜对手。     

谈入世后企业竞争力的提升

加入世贸组织使得我国市场竞争格局和竞争环境发生重大的变化，使我国企业面临更加严峻的挑战，企业必须通过确立企业经营领域的竞争优势来增强企业的核心竞争力；通过自主创新和国际知名大企业和跨国公司联合开发，创造出有自主知识产权的新产品，通过产品品牌的国际沦战略来实现企业竞争力的提升；通过不同的市场定位来确立企业自身的竞争优势；通过差异化和创新的营销手段和策略来赢得顾客。     

Product Development Strategy and Organizational Learning: A Tale of Two PC Makers

The personal computer (PC) marketplace in the US presents a dizzying array of component suppliers and products. No single firm dominates the industry with a complete package of hardware and software components. Although one company's operating systems and general-purpose applications are installed on most PCs in the US, the other system components—processors, memory, storage devices, display adapters, monitors, specialized applications, and so on—come from any number of sources. David T. Methe, Ryoko Toyama, and Junichiro Miyabe point out that the PC industry in Japan also exhibits this decentralized nature. However, they also note that despite the decentralized network structure of the Japanese PC industry, one company—NEC—was able to achieve a dominant market share. To provide insight into the key issues involved in the management of complex technology, they contrast NEC's strategic approach to product development and organizational learning with the approaches taken by Fujitsu—the firm that placed a distant second in this market. Despite matching NEC in terms of technological capabilities, financial resources, and managerial talent, Fujitsu never managed to threaten NEC's dominance of the PC market in Japan. Fujitsu continually emphasized technological leadership, even at the expense of protecting its installed base. Poor coordination of resources and product development efforts resulted in incompatibilities among Fujitsu's various products, and the company failed to foster close relationships with suppliers of such key technologies as software and peripherals. NEC's PCs did not enjoy the advantages of first-to-market status or technological leadership. Instead, NEC achieved market dominance by finding the combination of product technologies that met the needs of the greatest number of consumers. Throughout almost 20 years of competition in the PC industry, NEC successfully maintained consistency and backward compatibility across its product lines. NEC also recognized the importance of third-party software developers, and carefully cultivated relations with these firms as a source of competitive advantage. In other words, NEC struck the right balance between three key factors: technological innovation, motivation of third-party developers of software and peripherals, and service to its installed base of customers.     

全球视角下分布式创新的形成因素分析

20世纪90年代以后,随着经济全球化及先进信息技术的广泛应用,分布式创新应运而生。其产生根源是知识和技术已超过自然资源、资本和劳动力成为最重要的生产要素,并且具有技术领导者主宰国际知识分散创新的特点。文章认为有多种因素促成了分布式创新形成,包括全球化创新和跨国公司发展,发展中国家技术能力不断提升,全球技术标准和主导设计,创新快速响应客户需求,ICT技术广泛应用,日益加深的劳动分工和供应商协同等。为适应全球化创新环境要求,企业特别是技术密集型企业必须调整其创新模式。     

The contribution of 'new boy' phenomena to increasing innovation and improvement in new technology

. The importance of increasing innovation and improvement in support of national priorities and goals is commonly stated, and such importance is, in the main, agreed upon. Conventional wisdom relies heavily upon competition and direct incentives to be the driving force for innovation and improvement. The data presented herein argues in favor of increasing competition by encouraging new producers, socalled ‘new Boys,’ to enter a specific technological application area. This suggests that a ‘new boy’ policy judiciously applied would increase the rate of change of improvement and of innovation and probably would reduce the costs per unit improvement. We present analyses drawn from a single industry over a period of approximately twenty-five years. The study analyzes 237 projects drawn from ten corporations and points to the effects of the ‘new boy’ phenomena at all sections of the technology curve.     

The impact of competition strength and density on performance: The technological competition networks in the wind energy industry

Technological competition plays an important role in technological development and innovation. However, technological competition networks have long been ignored in research. Based on the social network theory, we proposed that the innovation of an organization is greatly affected by the technological competition networks that it is embedded in. We introduced International Patent Classifications (IPCs) information to construct technological competition networks of organizations, and explored how competition network characteristics influence the organizational competitive capability and innovation performance.Based on the wind energy patent data between 2005 and 2014, we synthetically investigated the technological development and competition networks in the industry. Our findings show that (1) the evolutionary trends of patents and technology elements growth exhibit similar patterns (i.e., increasing before 2011 and decreasing after 2011); (2) the burst detection algorithm detects that 140 technological elements and 132 organizations experienced a sudden growth in production; (3) wind energy organizations intensively compete with each other, and in each year, only 10% of organizations can improve their technological competitive positions in the following year; (4) competition density in a competition network increases the technological competitive capability and innovation performance of firms. Additionally, competition strength has an inverted-U shaped relationship with both the aforementioned outcomes.     

Learning Capability,Technological Parity,and Innovation Mode Use*

The purpose of this research was to examine whether a firm's learning capability interacts with industry technological parity to predict innovation mode use. Learning capability is conceptualized in the current research as a firm's ability to develop or acquire the new knowledge‐based resources and skills needed to offer new products. Industry technological parity is conceptualized as the extent to which similarity and equality exist among the technological competencies of the firms in an industry. Three generic modes of innovation are considered: internal, cooperative, and external innovation. These modes reflect the development of new products based solely on internal resources, the collaborative development of new products (i.e., with one or more development partners), and the acquisition of fully developed products from external sources, respectively. The premises of this research are that (1) technological parity can create incentives or disincentives for innovating in a particular mode, depending upon the value of external innovative resources relative to the value of internal innovative resources and (2) firms will choose innovation modes that reflect a combination of their abilities and incentives to innovate alone, with others, or through others. Survey research and secondary sources were used to collect data from 119 high‐technology firms. Results indicate that firms exhibit greater use of internal and external innovation when high levels of industry technological parity are matched by high levels of firm learning capability. By contrast, a negative relationship between learning capability and industry technological parity is associated with greater use of the cooperative mode of innovation. Thus, a single, common internal capability—learning capability—interacts with the level of technological parity in the environment to significantly predict three distinct innovation modes—modes that are not inherently dependent upon one another. As such, a firm's internal ability to innovate, as reflected in learning capability, has relevance well beyond that firm's likely internal innovation output. It also predicts the firm's likely use of cooperative and external innovation when considered in light of the level of industry technological parity. A practical implication of these findings is that companies with modest learning capabilities are not inherently precluded from innovating. Rather, they can innovate through modes for which conditions in their current environments do not constitute significant obstacles to innovation output. In particular, modest learning capabilities are associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are low, high, and low, respectively. Conversely, strong learning capabilities tend to be associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are high, low, and high, respectively.     

基于DEA 模型的我国上市商业银行竞争力分析

金融业竞争的日益市场化与国际化以及基于技术创新的金融业快速发展，使得我国竞争力本来就不强的银行业深受冲击。因此，我国银行业必须不断提升自主创新能力，提高市场竞争力，以便构筑起可持续发展的能力。本文试图用数据包络方法(DEA) 对我国16 家上市商业银行竞争力进行实证分析，期望能够对我国商业银行竞争力的提升有一定的借鉴意义。     

Partner technological heterogeneity and innovation performance of R&D alliances

This study investigates the impacts of partner technology heterogeneity on innovation performance of alliance firms both in terms of R&D output and the enhancement of partners’ innovation capability. We apply a generalized semi-parametric model on a questionnaire survey result of 413 High and New Technology Enterprises in China. In order to ensure the robustness and practicability of our result, PCA is applied to extract comprehensive information and SiZer analysis is employed to test the linearity and significance of the nonparametric functions in the model. Our results indicate that collaborations between partners with different industry technologies exert inversed U-shaped R&D output pattern and affect very little the innovation ability of focal firms. The impact of industry domain divergence is no longer significant when partner technology heterogeneity is added in the model of analysis. Partner technology heterogeneity leads to an ascending S-shaped R&D output pattern and contributes positively to innovation capabilities. One of the implications of our findings is that when choosing R&D alliance partners, firms are better off avoiding candidates from a different industry domain but opt for potential collaborators who are in the same industry but in the different technical domain, which may facilitate more effective organizational learning. Further, we argue that the reasons behind the S-shaped R&D output pattern led by technology heterogeneity being the co-existence of competition and cooperation between partners where firms collaborate in value-creation by combining diverse resources and compete for acquiring partner’s distinct technology and resources. Therefore, we suggest that, for the sustainability of collaborative innovation outcome, both cooperation and competition amongst alliance partners should be encouraged and well balanced at different stages of joint R&D projects.     

技术领先战略与技术创新价值

本文以企业研发投入并未形成足够的利润现象为背景,分析企业研发投入动力与技术领先战略,并用创新竞赛模型、技术的理性对抗、企业内技术外溢、技术保护和技术实力显示来解释这一现象。由此得出结论:企业追求创新的长期利益在本质上也是创新竞赛,但未必会导致过度的研发投入.企业追求创新的长期动机可以让企业更加主动地参与创新;政府推进创新的短期政策很容易造成创新竞赛。而长期政策则可以让企业有效率地参与研发.     

How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry

The number of strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry is sharply increasing. Some studies show that each alliance partner type has different alliance motives, resources and capabilities, organizational structures and cultures, and degrees of competition with partners, which can lead to different performances of strategic alliances. In this regard, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the different impact of each type of alliance partner on technological innovation performance and finds the moderating effect of absorptive capacity and potential competition by categorizing strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry into three types: vertical-downstream alliances, vertical-upstream alliances, and horizontal alliances. This study analyzed 206 Korean biotechnology firms and their strategic alliances for a total of 292 R&D activities. The results of the analysis showed that vertical alliances have a positive impact on technological innovation performance, while horizontal alliances have an inverted U-shaped relationship with technological innovation performance caused by the effect of competition. Additionally, it was confirmed that the R&D intensity of biotechnology firms has a moderating effect of increasing the impact of vertical-upstream alliances on technological innovation performance.     

Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study

This paper examines the impact of acquisitions on the subsequent innovation performance of acquiring firms in the chemicals industry. We distinguish between technological acquisitions, acquisitions in which technology is a component of the acquired firm's assets, and nontechnological acquisitions: acquisitions that do not involve a technological component. We develop a framework relating acquisitions to firm innovation performance and develop a set of measures for quantifying the technological inputs a firm obtains through acquisitions. We find that within technological acquisitions absolute size of the acquired knowledge base enhances innovation performance, while relative size of the acquired knowledge base reduces innovation output. The relatedness of acquired and acquiring knowledge bases has a nonlinear impact on innovation output. Nontechnological acquisitions do not have a significant effect on subsequent innovation output. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.