基于互搏意愿的颠覆性产品创新管理机制研究

【作者】 余浩；

【导师】 陈劲；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 管理科学与工程， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 颠覆性产品创新的重要性无论如何强调也不为过,因为它有潜力从盈利、市场份额和企业未来福利等方面提供巨大的商业回报。同时,颠覆性创新会破坏原有市场从而创造出新的市场。企业组织可以通过引入颠覆性产品创新而戏剧性地改变竞争舞台,迫使竞争对手产品过时并采用新范式来主导市场。在我国的创新实践中则更多称颠覆性创新为“自主创新”,并已经成为国家战略导向重要选择之一。针对我国各类企业在面对日益激烈的竟合环境下,如何去实现企业高层次的颠覆性产品创新,从而保持企业竞争力及实现可持续增长。在企业颠覆性产品创新实践中普遍存在资金投入大、创新周期长、创新绩效低和过程管理困难等实际问题所导致的创新意愿不足,以及如何配置资源、协调能力和调整企业惯例等方面都存在许多的研究空白。在当前,我国各类企业还很难真正意义上开展颠覆性创新,即使企业有好的新产品创意,许多企业会拒绝采纳和将其导入市场,因为我国企业缺乏相应的创新能力/技能以及集体认知/态度来实现其商业应用。本研究试图通过提出并检验有关在生物技术产业情景下企业战略导向与产品创新之间的相互关系来提高颠覆性产品创新绩效的理论框架。本研究借用了计划行为理论、组织学习和特别是资源理论观点(RBV)中的“互搏意愿”概念,互搏意愿是解释一些企业为何开发更多颠覆性产品的关键变量。研究系统分析了企业缘何会有意愿在侵蚀原有产品市场份额的情况下引入另一种新产品,换言之,企业愿意重新调整先前投资和现有的能力等关键因素。因为互搏意愿的概念在西方管理学文献中也是近十年的事情,所以国内研究有关互搏意愿的概念模型和实证研究相对缺乏。因此,在借鉴国内外的互搏意愿与颠覆性产品创新的研究成果,我们综合选取国外信息技术产业(重点选择苹果和谷歌两家企业)的探索性案例研究,同时对浙江省内30家企业的生物技术产业的实地调研的基础上,结合战略导向、互搏意愿和颠覆性产品创新的相关理论,提出了基于互搏意愿的颠覆性产品创新管理模式。针对研究所做的假设,通过对回收的198份有效问卷调查所获得的数据进行统计分析和结构方程建模,分析了颠覆性产品创新过程中战略导向与互搏意愿的作用机理和途径,得到如下主要研究结论:首先,识别了互搏意愿三种结构维度:①资源互搏意愿,②能力互搏意愿,以及④惯例互搏意愿,在研究中表明资源互搏意愿、能力互搏意愿和惯例互搏意愿对颠覆性产品创新绩效存在显著影响关系;其次,战略导向可分成竞争导向、技术导向、客户导向和未来导向四个子维度,但与颠覆性产品创新绩效的并非直接联系,而是通过互搏意愿中间变量而起作用,竞争导向对惯例互搏意愿存在显著影响关系;技术导向对资源互搏意愿、能力互搏意愿和惯例互搏意愿都存在显著负相关影响关系;客户导向对能力互搏意愿存在显著影响关系;未来导向对能力互搏意愿、惯例互搏意愿存在显著影响关系。战略导向因素对颠覆性产品创新绩效的作用路径共有八条:竞争者导向→能力互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新;竞争者导向→惯例互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新;技术导向→资源互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新:技术导向→能力互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新;技术导向→惯例互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新;客户导向→能力互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新;未来导向→能力互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新;未来导向→惯例互搏意愿→颠覆性产品创新。最后,产品支持对于基于互搏意愿的颠覆性产品创新整体模型有显著调节作用,企业规模和企业研发强度对于生物技术产业的颠覆性产品创新绩效都存在显著影响关系。基于这些分析,提出了提高颠覆性产品创新绩效的管理方法与具体的管理措施,以及有关研究对于理论研究、产业实践和政府政策制订三个层面的启示。当然,研究也存在国内案例研讨尚有待于深化,对于颠覆性产品创新绩效如何从破坏性和突破性两层属性加以展开实证研究,如何考虑互搏意愿维度之间相关性问题以及有关颠覆性产品创新中高层领导对产品支持的研究尚不够深入等不足。未来的研究工作则可以针对这些不足和问题进行进一步深入研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 The importance of breakthrough product innovations (BTPIs) can hardly be overstated, because they potentially offer great rewards in terms of profitability, market share and the future well-being of organizations. Also, BTPIs may destroy markets and create new ones. Organizations may drastically alter the competitive arena by introducing BTPIs, thus making products of competitors obsolete and dominating the market with a new paradigm.Yet, most Chinese experts would like to define BTPIs as Self-Product-innovations (SPIs) which have been become the one choice of Chinese national strategic orientation. Under the environment of stronger coopetition, Chinese companies should consider how to carry out the higher level of BTPIs in order to acquire the dynamic capabilities and everlasting growth. During the most BTPIs practice, there are some practical dilemma such as large investments, long period of innovation, low innovational performances and troublesome process of BTPIs management, but also there are still little research about the firms how to allocate resources, trade-off competences and adjust routines. Nowadays, many Chinese companies fail to come up with BTPIs. Even in the face of a good idea for a new product, many organizations refuse to take it up and bring it to the market because of lacking their innovative competence/capability or collective cognition/attitude to commercial application.This study tries to seek to enhance understanding of successful BTPIs by developing and testing a new theory framework for explaining the strategic orientation and BTPIs relationship in the context of Biotechnology industry. Drawing on and adapting key concepts "Willingness to cannibalize (W2C)" from theory of planned behavior (TPB), organization learning and particularly in the area of resource-based view (RBV) theory, some pioneering scholars believe that W2C is the key variable explaining why some companies develop more radically new products than others do. The study investigates how firms will to introduce another new product which may cannibalize the market shares of original product. In other words, it refers to the organizational disposition to forego its investments and current competencies.Although the concept of willingness to cannibalize was introduced in western management literature less than a decade ago, it has been the focus of little conceptual development and no empirical research in China. In terms of the theory study about strategic orientation, W2C and BTPIs, using the exploring case study about Apple and Google in ITC industry and the field study about 30 firms in Chinese biotechnology firms of Zhejiang province, we develops an integrated conceptual framework about the mechanism of BTPIs management. In order to test the hypotheses of research, the study includes a major survey of the responses of 198 top manager teams from biotechnology industry of Zhejiang Province in China. Structural equation modeling and reliability tests are used for data analysis which supports the interaction mechanism of strategic orientation and W2C in BTPIs management. The main conclusions are presented as below:First, three dimensions of W2C are identified: (1) resources W2C, (2) capabilities W2C, and (3) routines W2C. All of resources, capabilities and routines W2C have positive association with BTPIs performance.Second, the constructs of strategic orientation are identified: (1) competitor orientation, (2) technology orientation, (3) custom orientation and (4) future orientation. The relationship between Strategic orientation and BTPIs performance is indirect and mediated by W2C. The findings show that competitor orientation positive leads to capabilities, routines W2C; technology orientation is negative to resource, capabilities, routine W2C; custom orientation positive leads to capabilities W2C; future orientation positive leads to capabilities, routines W2C.Strategic orientation has eight paths to influence the performance of BTPIs: competitor orientation→capabilities W2C→BTPIs, competitor orientation→routines W2C→BTPIs, technology orientation→resources W2C→BTPIs, technology orientation→capabilities W2C→BTPIs, technology orientation→routines W2C→BTPIs, custom orientation→capabilities W2C→BTPIs, future orientation→capabilities W2C→BTPIs, future orientation→routines W2C→BTPIs.The last, the total integrated conceptual framework is moderated by product champions. The scale of firm and the strength of R&D are also having positive association with BTPIs performance.Despite the promising results of our study, there are several limitations of our study. First, the Chinese exploring case study is not so typical. Second, the two - dimensions of BTPIs performance is combined with disruptive and radical performance, but we only develop a valid measure of disruptive performance. Third, although we researched the consequences of willingness to cannibalize on BTPIs performance, we only considered the construct of the three-dimensions are independent. More model development should take place, if we include the dependent effect of our three-dimensions. Fourth, more advanced data analyses techniques may be used, particularly when analyzing more complex models incorporating the new construct. Fourth, the leadership of the product champions in BTPIs is needed to advance. In future studies, the direction which discussed above can be put forward.更多还原