PDF(1185 KB)
PDF(1185 KB)
PDF(1185 KB)
标准创新生态系统企业合作关系与价值创造
Cooperative relationship and value creation of enterprises in the standard innovation ecosystem
在高度不确定性环境中,标准创新生态系统企业能否从合作中获益是一个关键问题。本文讨论了标准创新生态系统企业合作关系广度对其价值创造的影响,以及非对称依赖的调节作用,并以2010—2020年参与中国通信标准化协会的132家上市企业为样本,采用固定效应多元回归法对研究假设进行实证检验。研究结果显示:标准创新生态系统企业合作关系广度对价值创造具有显著的正向作用;非对称依赖会增强企业合作关系广度对价值创造的正向作用;拓展性分析发现:与伙伴企业间的技术重叠关系会增强合作关系广度对价值创造的正向作用;产品多元化程度高的企业合作关系广度对价值创造的正向作用更明显。本研究不仅从微观视角丰富了价值创造的研究,还为企业制定标准创新生态系统合作策略,提高合作绩效提供了实际参考。
Whether and when firms in standards innovation ecosystem can benefit from cooperation and reap the expected returns in a highly uncertain environment is crucial, but this question has not been adequately answered by existing research. This paper discussed the impact of cooperative relationship breadth of firms in the standard innovation ecosystem on their value creation and the moderating role of asymmetric dependence, and empirically tested the research hypotheses using the fixed-effects multiple regression method with a sample of 132 listed firms participating in China Communications Standards Association (CCSA) from 2010 to 2020. The results of the study showed that: Firms cooperative relationship breadth in standard innovation ecosystem is conducive to value creation, mainly because as the number of cooperative relationship increases, the more technologically compatible complementary products there are with them, and the easier the network effect is stimulated and the more likely it is to win the market favor, thus facilitating the creation of value; The asymmetric dependence enhances the positive effect of cooperative relationship breadth on value creation. Asymmetric dependence can encourage focal firms and their partners to increase cooperative inputs and form dependent cooperative relationships, which is conducive to further improving the technological compatibility of them as well as the network effect, thus strengthening the contribution of cooperative relationship breadth to value creation, The expansion analysis revealed that: technological overlap between focal firms and cooperative firms enhances the positive effect of cooperative relationship breadth on value creation; and cooperative relationship breadth is more conducive to value creation for firms with a high degree of product diversification than for firms with a low degree of product diversification. This study has not only enriched the study of value creation from a micro perspective, but also provided practical references for firms to formulate cooperation strategies in standard innovation ecosystem and improve cooperation performance.
标准创新生态系统 / 合作关系广度 / 价值创造 / 非对称依赖
standard innovation ecosystem / cooperative relationship breadth / value creation / asymmetric dependence
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
张运生, 陈祖琼. 技术标准化创新生态系统如何推动销售增长[J]. 科学学研究, 2020, 38(7): 1317-1324.
以技术标准为纽带构建创新生态系统，有助于促进系统内协作R&D，优化资源配置，进而提供创新生态系统价值共创的新路径。研究从“产品市场-技术市场”双维联合分析视角，探讨了中国信息产业上市公司营造技术标准化创新生态系统推动企业销售增长的深层次机理。研究发现：营造技术标准化创新生态系统与企业核心技术开发及产品营销行为具有显著的耦合效应。高科技企业营造技术标准化创新生态系统，有助于完善技术依存体系，激发同一技术范式的直接网络效应，推动本企业核心技术向产品转化；技术标准化创新生态系统还通过协调互补配套产品技术关系，激发间接网络效应，有助于强化企业的产品营销效果，推动企业销售增长。
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
詹爱岚, 陈衍泰. 标准创新生态系统治理与知识产权战略演化[J]. 科学学研究, 2021, 39(7): 1326-1334.
数字经济创新主体要获取价值，需更好的理解平台和创新生态系统动态。创新生态系统治理与知识产权战略运用，有助于提升技术标准化效率。基于历史文献的移动通信标准跨代多案例研究，揭示知识产权战略管理与标准创新生态系统治理机制的互动演化，探讨开放式创新环境下独占机制、知识产权制度与企业从创新中获利的交互作用。研究发现：其一，移动通信标准创新生态系统治理机制呈现出四大演化趋势，知识产权成为标准创新生态治理的重要手段；其二，伴随标准代际更替及创新生态系统治理的演进，移动通信产业知识产权管理经历了“反专利—亲专利—亲许可—亲诉讼”的战略演化路径；其三，开放式创新环境下独占机制、互补与替代性资产、知识产权战略之间彼此相互作用。互补与替代性资产差异下企业存在独占策略与路径选择差异。
The value-capture for innovators in the digital economy requires better understanding the dynamics of innovation platform and ecosystem. The innovation ecosystem governance and the intellectual property strategies implementation are significantly improving the standardization efficiency. Based on a historical literatures investigation into a cross-generational multi-case in the mobile communications industry, it systematically examines the co-evolution of innovation ecosystem governance and the relevant strategic intellectual property management; discusses the interplay between the appropriation mechanism, intellectual property regime, and profiting from innovation. The findings shows: first, with the standard generation changes, the governance of innovation ecosystem has experienced four evolutionary trends, and intellectual property rights have become an important measure for standard innovation ecosystem governance in the mobile communications industry; secondly, the management of intellectual property has experienced a strategic evolution path from anti-patent, pro-patent, pro-licensing, to pro-litigation sequentially; thirdly, in an open innovation environment, the appropriation mechanism, complementary and substitutional accets, and the intellectual property strategy interacts with each other. Company with different complementary or substitutional accet advantages have different stratigic appropriation and path choice.
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
Microsoft's and Wal-Mart's preeminence in modern business has been attributed to any number of factors--from the vision and drive of their founders to the companies' aggressive competitive practices. But the authors maintain that the success realized by these two very different companies is due only partly to the organizations themselves; a bigger factor is the success of the networks of companies with which Microsoft and Wal-Mart do business. Most companies today inhabit ecosystems--loose networks of suppliers, distributors, and outsourcers; makers of related products or services; providers of relevant technology; and other organizations that affect, and are affected by, the creation and delivery of a company's own offering. Despite being increasingly central to modern business, ecosystems are still poorly understood and even more poorly managed. The analogy between business networks and biological ecosystems can aid this understanding by vividly highlighting certain pivotal concepts. The moves that a company makes will, to varying degrees, affect the health of its business network, which in turn will ultimately affect the organization's performance--for ill as well as for good. Because a company, like an individual species in a biological ecosystem, ultimately shares its fate with the network as a whole, smart firms pursue strategies that will benefit everyone. So how can you promote the health and the stability of your own ecosystem, determine your place in it, and develop a strategy to match your role, thereby helping to ensure your company's well-being? It depends on your role--current and potential--within the network. Is your company a niche player, a keystone, or a dominator? The answer to this question may be different for different parts of your business. It may also change as your ecosystem changes. Knowing what to do requires understanding the ecosystem and your organization's role in it.
|
| [12] |
High-definition televisions should, by now, be a huge success. Philips, Sony, and Thompson invested billions of dollars to develop TV sets with astonishing picture quality. From a technology perspective, they've succeeded: Console manufacturers have been ready for the mass market since the early 1990s. Yet the category has been an unmitigated failure, not because of deficiencies, but because critical complements such as studio production equipment were not developed or adopted in time. Under-performing complements have left console producers in the position of offering a Ferrari in a world without gasoline or highways--an admirable engineering feat, but not one that creates value for customers. The HDTV story exemplifies the promise and peril of innovation ecosystems--the collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their individual offers into a coherent, customer-facing solution. When they work, innovation ecosystems allow companies to create value that no one firm could have created alone. The benefits of these systems are real. But for many organizations the attempt at ecosystem innovation has been a costly failure. This is because, along with new opportunities, innovation ecosystems also present a new set of risks that can brutally derail a firm's best efforts. Innovation ecosystems are characterized by three fundamental types of risk: initiative risks--the familiar uncertainties of managing a project; interdependence risks--the uncertainties of coordinating with complementary innovators; and integration risks--the uncertainties presented by the adoption process across the value chain. Firms that assess ecosystem risks holistically and systematically will be able to establish more realistic expectations, develop a more refined set of environmental contingencies, and arrive at a more robust innovation strategy. Collectively, these actions will lead to more effective implementation and more profitable innovation.
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
陈健, 高太山, 柳卸林, 等. 创新生态系统:概念、理论基础与治理[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(17): 153-160.
创新生态系统作为适应当今独特竞争环境的一种创新范式，正在引起理论界与实践界的广泛讨论。在总结前人研究的基础上，梳理了创新生态系统相关理论基础，界定了创新生态系统相关概念及其联系与区别，以治理中心特性为分类标准，归纳了4类创新生态系统的架构与治理重点。
|
| [16] |
王道平, 韦小彦, 张志东. 基于高技术企业创新生态系统的技术标准价值评估研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2013(11): 40-48.
|
| [17] |
崔蓓, 王玉霞. 供应网络联系强度与风险分担:依赖不对称的调节作用[J]. 管理世界, 2017(4): 106-118.
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
冯科, 曾德明. 二元技术标准制定绩效的驱动因素:外部网络位置与内部技术能力的权变作用[J]. 管理评论, 2023, 35(4): 79-90.
|
| [20] |
In this research, we unpack how interdependencies affect not just individual dyads but also value creation across an alliance portfolio and ultimately a focal firm’s performance. Moving beyond the collection of dyadic relationships of individual alliances, we examine more holistically the distribution of power imbalances and mutual dependences within alliance portfolios, as well as the impact of redundancies in portfolio partners’ resources. Building on resource dependence theory, we develop and test arguments on a sample of 59 firms in the U.S. passenger airline industry during 1998–2011. We find that nonuniform distributions of power imbalances and mutual dependences within the alliance portfolio as well as redundancy affect firm performance in different ways, which has implications for the management of alliance portfolios.
|
| [21] |
Complementary assets play an important role in shaping an innovation’s commercialization success. In this paper, we broaden the locus of complementarities to examine the role of complementary technologies residing in the business ecosystems that are becoming an important source of value creation for innovating firms. We argue that, on one hand, complementary technologies help innovations create more value for their users. On the other hand, they can also limit the focal innovation’s value creation by exposing them to performance bottlenecks as the underlying technological architecture of the ecosystem evolves. We further extend the notion of specialization of complementary assets to ecosystems by considering complementary technologies that are specialized to a focal ecosystem and those that are available across multiple ecosystems. We highlight that, although the complementary technologies that are specialized to an ecosystem facilitate greater value creation, they are more likely to subject the focal innovation to performance bottlenecks. Evidence from 244,034 apps launched by software developers for Apple’s iPhone ecosystem during 2008–2015 offers strong support for our framework. In summary, the study sheds light on the value creation tradeoff for firms innovating in business ecosystems—the opportunities associated with leveraging complementarities and the challenges associated with managing technological interdependencies.
|
| [22] |
曾德明, 戴海闻, 张裕中. 基于网络结构与资源禀赋的企业对标准化影响力研究[J]. 管理学报, 2016, 13(1): 59-66.
|
| [23] |
李健, 张金林, 董小凡. 数字经济如何影响企业创新能力:内在机制与经验证据[J]. 经济管理, 2022, 44(8): 5-22.
|
| [24] |
张娜, 刘凤朝. 双层次合作网络构建对企业探索性创新绩效的影响[J]. 管理工程学报, 2021, 35(1): 1-11.
|
| [25] |
杨慧军, 杨建君. 外部搜寻、联结强度、吸收能力与创新绩效的关系[J]. 管理科学, 2016, 29(3): 24-37.
|
| [26] |
张娜, 刘凤朝. 基于知识关系和活动过程的企业探索性创新绩效实现机制研究[J]. 科研管理, 2023, 44(2): 45-54.
|
| [27] |
周青, 吴童祯, 杨伟, 等. 面向“一带一路”企业技术标准联盟的驱动因素与作用机制研究:基于文本挖掘和程序化扎根理论融合方法[J]. 南开管理评论, 2021, 24(3): 150-161.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
