在今日瞬息萬變的產業環境裡，策略學者Porter (1980)所提出的五力分析只能告訴我們在某個時點中企業是否具有競爭優勢。但是，我們卻無法解釋企業的競爭優勢從何而來？又該往哪裡去？Hamel & Prahalad (1990)認為企業應該以未來的表現作為主要競爭的舞臺，建立核心競爭力來進行創新與變革才是企業獲取長久競爭優勢的主要手段。
Teece (1997)進一步提出動態能耐的概念，探討廠商在動態環境中，進行變革所需的能耐。Zott (2003) 利用電腦進行了寡佔的競爭賽局模擬，証實了動態能耐的三個屬性：組織執行力、變革成本、學習效應，是影響組織具有超額利潤的重要關鍵。
本研究另外引用其他文獻，如Jovanovic & MacDonald (1994)、Klepper (1996)、Winter (2003)，重新建構了理論模式以進行電腦模擬。我們將模擬的架構做出以下修正：增加廠商數目、有淘汰廠商的機制、產品創新與製程創新之間會互相影響、增加學習效應的種類，並修正目標函數與動態過程，讓模擬更符合實際狀況，來了解以下三個問題：
一、在動態能耐的屬性高低皆相同的情形下，廠商是否會有超額利潤？
二、不同程度的執行力對競爭優勢有何影響？
三、不同種類的學習效應對廠商競爭優勢有何影響？廠商的學習效應除了從事變革時的學習外，還有在執行變革的過程中從事學習的情形。我們將會模擬擅長不同學習效應的廠商，那一方能獲得超額利潤。
根據我們的實驗，本研究的結論如下：
一、動態能耐是產業內出現不同利潤表現的因素之一，當廠商動態能耐的強弱相同時，創新的策略思是影響競爭優勢的原因。我們發現最成功的廠商會在產業初期提升產品創新，在產業成熟之後大量投入製程創新，與Klepper (1996)的發現相同。
二、組織執行力會影響超額利潤。但是必須在所有廠商的變革成本處於較低的狀態，或有較好的學習效應時，執行力較高的廠商才會有明顯的競爭優勢。
三、如果廠商的組織執行力相同，注重在執行變革的學習效應，能幫助廠商獲得競爭優勢。相對地，注重在尋找變革策略上的學習，對競爭優勢的幫助較為有限。
本研究不僅展現了動態能耐對競爭優勢多方面的影響，並提供一個架構來闡述一家公司從策略到能耐的競爭結構。要怎麼結合這個架構與策略地圖是我們後續可以研究的方向。 / In the dynamic environment of competitive industry, we have problem to know how a company will perform in the future with Five-Force-Model (Porter 1980). Five-Force-Model can tell us the competitive advantage of a company at that time, but we can’t explain how the company got that competitive advantage and whether it could be kept or not in the future. The theory of Core Competence (Hamel & Prahalad 1990) notifies that company should compete for future, and accumulate its core competence for innovation to keep the competitive advantage. Basing on Resource Based View, Teece (1997) further discussed the Dynamic Capability which is needed by enterprise in dynamic competition. Zott (2003) simulate a Cournot Game to study the attributes of dynamic capability. He finds that execution, strategic switching cost and learning ability affect the superior profit of firms of intra-industry.
This research rebuilds the simulation of Zott (2003) and modifies the simulation by incorporating the insights from Jovanovic & MacDonald (1994), Klepper (1996) and Winter (2003). We increase the number of firms, set up the mechanism which can shake out the less competitive firms. We also remodel the settings of innovation and learning and modify the dynamic process and profit function to investigate the following question.
First, when the level of dynamic capability is the same, will firms in an intra-industry perform differently?
Second, could execution ability affect the superior profit?
Third, is the learning effect of switching strategy more important than the learning effect of implementing strategy?
Three propositions can be drawn from this simulation.
First, when all firms have equal dynamic capability, the strategy of innovation will affect the competitive advantage. We find that the most successful firm will increase production innovation at first then put more resources into process innovation, which is compatible with the empirical study of Klepper (1996).
Second, execution ability will affect the superior profit in some condition. When all firms have low strategic switching cost or good learning ability, the firms which have higher execution ability earn superior profit in simulation.
Third, when all firms have the same execution ability, the firms which have higher learning ability of implementing strategy will earn the superior profit. In contrast firm’s learning ability of switching strategy does not make great difference.
This research not only demonstrates the various impacts of dynamic capability, but also provides a framework to depict the competitive structure of a firm. The integration of this framework and strategy map deserves the further research.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0091359005 |
| Creators | 柯伯旻, Ke,Pomin |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds