| Summary: | 碩士 === 東海大學 === 企業管理學系碩士班 === 93 === In order to know whether the sources of mobility barriers proposed by Porter (1980) would vary in diverse industries and different industry evolution stages, this study divides mobility barriers into three kinds: internal advantages, transactional advantages and external advantages. And each kind of mobility barriers matches ‘resource-based theory’, ‘transaction cost theory’ and ‘institutional theory’ respectively to explain the strategic homogeneity of companies in the same strategic group. Besides, we also pick semiconductor industry, banking and automobile industry in Taiwan according the theories above as research objects. In the end, we use ‘Match Ratio’ to measure the mobility barriers by MOBIUS method (Fiegenbaum et al., 1991), and employ the changes of mobility barriers in each industry across industry life cycle to illustrate the dynamic strategic groups.
The research discovers internal advantages are the major sources of mobility barriers for semiconductor industry. It means that IC companies utilize their own resources and abilities to build up economic scale and differentiate products could prevent themselves from potential threat. The origins of mobility barriers in Banking are external advantages. It presents the coercive isomorphism pressures (DiMaggio＆Powell, 1983) like government policies and social expectations would let companies’ strategies and actions tend to be similar. When the similarity couldn’t be imitated by other groups’ members, it would become a mobility barrier. The main sources of mobility barriers in automobile industry are transactional advantages. However, a company can not obtain these advantages in short term because the mutual trust of seller and buyer is established by the accumulation of cooperation experiences.
The mobility barriers of industry growth period are external advantages. It expresses official regulations could push the industry to go forward. Compared with growth period, the mobility barriers of mature period are higher, and internal advantages are principle. These findings reveal the mobility barriers would vary in different evolution stages. This situation offers companies a perfect opportunity to overcome the mobility barriers and change strategic group. Consequently, the dynamic behaviors of strategic groups would take place.
|
|---|
