| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 科技管理研究所 === 93 === 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.
|
|---|
