创新与企业的可持续竞争优势：一个引论

【作者】 宋志红；

【导师】 范黎波；

【作者基本信息】 对外经济贸易大学 ， 企业管理， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 企业的竞争优势及其可持续性，已经成为战略管理理论和企业理论中的一个重要研究方向。以波特为代表的战略管理理论继承了传统产业组织（IO）的范式，采用一种“由外而内”（outside-in）的研究方法。波特认为，企业的绩效取决于企业采取的战略，而企业采取的战略则取决于行业中的五种竞争力量。行业中的五种力量直接影响到企业的价格水平、成本结构和投资需求，从整体上决定了产业的盈利性（波特, 1980），而企业只能采取适当的战略，适应企业所处的外部环境。因此，最终来讲，战略管理理论的观点认为行业结构决定了企业的竞争优势。另一方面，企业理论中的资源观点（Resource-Based View, RBV）认为，企业是一系列独特资源和能力的组合。这些资源被定义为与企业半永久性结合（Semi-Permanently）的有形或无形的资产（Maijoor and Witteloostuijn, 1996.）。例如，机器设备、企业拥有的专利技术和产品、营销渠道、稳定的顾客群体、企业声誉、品牌名称、企业内部的技术知识、熟练的雇员、高效的运作程序等（Barney，1991.）。RBV的研究思路是，企业的资源决定了企业采取的战略，而企业的战略选择决定了企业的绩效。也就是说，RBV认为企业的竞争优势来自于企业内部的因素，而不是外部的行业因素。这正是战略理论的观点和企业的资源观点在企业竞争优势来源问题上的分歧之处。实际上，从上面的分析也可以看出，这两种观点是从不同的角度解释同一个问题。因此，这两种观点可以纳入解释企业竞争优势来源的同一个框架。另外一个问题是，上述两种理论的结合虽然能够很有效地解释企业的竞争优势，但是并不能解释这种优势的可持续性。很明显，竞争优势和可持续竞争优势之间存在差别，但是理论界对此并没有足够的重视（蒋学伟，2002）。波特认为，企业必须根据对产业中五种竞争力量的分析，选择独特的定位制定战略（波特, 1980; 波特, 1985）是企业获得竞争优势的来源。他认为，只要将“战略定位”的概念相应地扩展为“可持续的战略定位”概念（波特, 1996），企业的竞争优势即可得到维持。为此，他提出的“权衡”的概念。“权衡”之所以产生是因为以下三个原因：第一，形象或声誉的不一致性。第二，权衡来自于活动本身。第三，内部协调和控制的局限性也是产生“权衡”的因素（波特,1996）。RBV观点中的代表人物Barney(1991)认为，当一个企业实施能创造价值的战略，而同时其他任何现有企业和潜在的竞争对手无法实施该战略时就拥有了竞争优势。但可持续竞争优势除满足这些条件外，还应包括“竞争对手无法复制此战略的优势”这一条件。他强调了以下几点：（1）竞争优势必须同时考虑现有的对手和潜在的竞争对手。（2）持续性不是一个日历时间的概念。（3）竞争优势的持续性并不意味着它将永远存在，它只是暗示，它将不会由于其它企业的复制而被挤出市场。本文第一章的第四节对“权衡”的概念作了分析，波特的竞争优势理论仍然是以企<WP=4>业单一的竞争优势为基础，其本质上是一种静态的观点；Barney（1991）的观点则是以既定的企业资源为基础的。这种观点使企业产生积累有价值的技术资产的倾向。一个矛盾的现象是，在市场竞争中胜出的是那些显示出及时反应能力、迅速而灵活的产品创新、并能够利用管理能力有效地协调并利用企业内外部资源的企业。如果脱离了企业对外部环境的积极反应能力，作为可持续竞争优势来源的既定形式的企业资源优势会由于某些原因而消散。首先，从企业的外部环境来看，在某一时刻，产业中竞争结构的不可预期的变化可能使得企业拥有的资源不再有价值了。例如技术更新换代速度加快，版权保护的期限缩短等。其次，从企业自身来看，企业的竞争优势主要来自于无形资源如知识和能力，但组织的惰性、路径依赖的锁定效应、因果模糊性(Wilcox & Zeithaml, 2001.)阻碍了资源、知识和能力的在企业内的有效流动，不利于企业竞争优势的维持。 综上所述，战略管理理论和RBV分别从行业结构（企业外部）和企业内部的角度解释了企业竞争优势的来源。但在解释企业的可持续竞争优势时，这两种理论都遇到了困难。熊彼特提出的创新理论解释了企业竞争优势的形成、维持和消失。但他最初的意图是解释引起商业周期变化的原因，而不是解释企业的可持续竞争优势。本文认为，企业的可持续竞争优势应当是一系列竞争优势的连续体。这一系列的竞争优势之间存在一种层层递进的关系，用哲学上的术语讲，企业的创新应当是一个“肯定—否定—否定之否定”的过程；这个过程体现了企业的可持续竞争优势建立在企业创新活动是一个“螺旋式前进”的过程。在这方面，D’Aveni的可持续竞争优势模型和Kline&Rosenberg(1986)链环—回路模型考为我们提供了有用的分析框架。链环—回路模型中创新源泉的多样性表明，企业的创新能力依赖于制造商与用户、供应商之间整合起来的能力。制造商、用户、供应商甚至制造商的竞争者之间的这种“合作竞争”关系改变了波特的战略管理理论分析框架下五种力量之间的“纯粹竞争”关系，从而蕴育了企业创新的土壤，成为企业持续创新得以实现的保证。在创新路径的K-R回路中?更多还原

【Abstract】 The sustainable competitive advantage of firms has become one of the focuses of strategic management and firm theory. With the outside-in research approach, Porter adopts the "S-C-P" paradigm of the Industrial Organization theory. Porter argues that the firm’s performance is determined by its strategy, while the strategy itself is dependent upon the five forces in the industry. In line with this argument, the firm is seen to consist of a series of strategic activities. It seeks a defensible position so as to adapt to the environment. The existence of the protection mechanisms such as patents and copyrights, economies of scale, the specialized contracts with suppliers and the "trade-offs" assure the sustainable competitiveness of firms. Porter’s framework acts as a useful tool for firms engaging in strategy decision-makings.In contrast, firm theory adopts a different method in explaining the competitive advantage of firms. This line of research begins with the assumption that firms are composed of idiosyncratic assets. Such assets, whether they be tangible or intangible, form the basis for choosing strategy, and those strategies based on firm’s resources determine the performance of firms.As the paper has pointed out, these two schools of thoughts have successfully explained the sources of competitive advantages of firms from different angles. The complementary nature between these two views makes it possible to include them into an integrated framework.However, when explaining the sustainability of competitive advantages of firm, these two views have encountered difficulties. One possible reason is the two concepts, the competitive advantage and the sustainable competitive advantage, are used by theorists indifferently. In Porter’s view, the sustainability of competitive advantages of firms may result from the sustainable strategic positioning, while the existence of "trade-offs" assures this possibility. As the paper has analyzed, the trade-offs argument provides a not-so-satisfactory answer. Barney( 1990) emphasizes the four characteristics of firm resources: valuable, rare, inimitable and lack of substitute. His arguments are largely based on the given attributes of firm resources. A paradoxical phenomenon arises that the firms with excellent performance are those which display timely responsiveness to changes in markets, rapid and flexible product innovation and utilization of managerial capabilities in integrating resources both in firms and outside environment. Also, firm’s resources can be eroded by changing conditions outside the firm,<WP=6>such as shortening of patent protection, organizational inertia, and lock-in effects of path dependency.Schumpeter, in his famous book, Theory of Economic Development ，advanced the concept of innovation to explain the business cycles in the capital society. Schumpeter paid no attention the sustainability of firm’s excellent performance, but his ideas shed lights on our analysis and pave the way for further research.For our purposes, Kline and Rosenberg’s chain-linked model (1986) is useful in that it not only points out different paths for firm’s innovating activities, but also includes insights on how to sustain the superior performance of firms. Our analysis is laid out in two lines: customers as a source of innovation and the resource-recombination within the firm. In the first aspect, Hippel’s empirical research is helpful, at least customers are regarded as contributors to firms’ competitiveness, as opposed to the roles customers play in Porter’s five force theory, where bargaining power of customers is partly detrimental to firms’ profits.As for the second aspect, our analysis is largely hypothetical. The paper attempts to examine the causal logic relationships between knowledge characteristics and firms’ innovation capabilities. But the relationships are complex and empirical research are needed to test the hypotheses.Managerial implications are inferred from the discussion mentioned above and suggestions for future research conclude the更多还原