Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© Thachenkary 1
Groupe ESC Toulouse International Management Option
Cherian S. Thachenkary, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Managerial Sciences
The J. Mack Robinson College of Business
Georgia State University
35 Broad Street, Suite 824
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Tel (404) 413-7551
© Thachenkary 2
Module 2
Technology Strategy and Competition • In Module 2, we examine various models of Technology
Strategy. The writings of Michael Porter, Kim Clark, and David Teece, among others, are introduced and critiqued.
• Porter suggests that, "Of all the things that can change the rules of competition, technological change is among the most prominent." Porter explains how to assess technology in terms of its impact on a firm's relative cost position or its differentiation strategy.
• Kim Clark argues that the "decision to invest in new technology ... is among the most important competitive decisions that management must make." Clark proceeds to introduce the concept of transilience, an innovation's capacity to transform existing systems of technology and marketing.
• David Teece examines the issue of timing of an innovation; that is, first mover vs. follower strategy and the conditions that will determine whether the innovator or imitator will profit. Regimes of appropriability, dominant design paradigm, and complementary assets are key concepts we will review.
© Thachenkary 3
Module 2: Learning Objectives• Does technology change competition?
– French examples?
• Porter’s models of technology and competition (“value chain analysis”)– Technology strategy
• Leadership, followership, licensing?
• Kim Clark’s model of transilience map– What are the four types of innovations?– Implications for competition
• David Teece’s: What question does he explore? – Why do innovators fail?– Why do imitators succeed?– Condition 1: Regimes of appropriability– Condition 2: Dominant design paradigm– Condition 3: Complementary assets
– Technology strategy: Contract or integrate
© Thachenkary 4
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION(Michael Porter)
– Technology and the Value Chain• Pervasive role of technology• Embodied in Primary and support activities• Information systems• Telecommunication systems• Linkages of technologies in value chain
– Technology and Industry Structure• Technology and the Five Forces Model
© Thachenkary 5
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION
• Technology and Competitive Advantage– Significant role to change relative cost position or
differentiation– Impact on cost drivers– Impact on uniqueness drivers– Discover a better technology to perform a value
activity than your competitor?– Technology can change other cost/uniqueness drivers
• Japanese aluminum firms, carbothermic reduction• Reduce power consumption
© Thachenkary 6
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION
• Tests of a desirable technological change?– Lowers costs, enhances differentiation, lead is
sustainable?– Shifts drivers in firm’s favor?– Pioneering leads to 1st mover advantages?– Improves overall industry structure?
© Thachenkary 7
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION
• Technology and industry structure• Technology and entry barriers
– Economies of scale– Learning curve– Switching costs
• Technology and buyer power– Bargaining relationships– Integration potential
© Thachenkary 8
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION
• Technology and supplier power– Similar to buyers?
• Technology and substitutes– Most commonly recognized impact
• Fiberglass, microwaves
• Technology and rivalry– Raises exit barriers?
© Thachenkary 9
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION:TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
• Must address three broad issues:– What technologies to develop?– Technological leadership?– Technology licensing?
© Thachenkary 10
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION:TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
• What technologies to develop?– Competitive advantage?– Help generic strategy?
• If cost leadership, does R&D lower costs in all value activities?
– Is advantage sustainable?
© Thachenkary 11
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION:TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
• Technological leadership or followership?– Seeks to be the first to introduce technology– Sustain the technological lead?– First mover advantages/disadvantages?
• Reputation/pioneer• Preempt a positioning• Switching costs/avoid disruption• Channel selection• Definition of standards• Institutional barriers: patents, protections
© Thachenkary 12
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION:TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
• Technology licensing?– Unable to exploit own technology development– Competitors might invent around
• Tapping unavailable markets?• Faster standardization
– VHS
• Create good competitors– Stimulate overall demand
• Choosing a licensee; pitfalls in licensing
© Thachenkary 13
TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETITION:TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
• FORMULATING TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
– Identify all technologies in the value chain– Identify potential technologies in other industries– Determine the likely path of technology evolution– Determine which technologies are most suited for
competitive advantage and industry structure– Assess a firm’s relative capabilities– Select technology strategy to reinforce firm’s overall
competitive strategy
© Thachenkary 14
Investment in New Technology and Competitive Advantage (Kim Clark)
• “The decision to invest in new technology…is among the most important competitive decisions that management must make.”
• Requires “a commitment to new concepts in managing production, new approaches to customers and markets, and the application of new technology.”
• Clark proposes a way of “thinking about the competitive role of new technology.”
• Issue: Changing nature of Competition – International Players
© Thachenkary 15
Competitive Advantage
• Not from product features, but the firm’s unique set of capabilities and strengths in producing the features that appeal to the customers
• Domains of competitive capability – Technology domain– Market domain
• Technology impacts – Conservative: enhances value of existing capability– Radical: disrupts and destroys
© Thachenkary 16
Transilience
• An innovation’s capacity to transform existing systems of technology and marketing
• Generates four different types of innovations– Architectural– Regular– Niche creation– Revolutionary
• Examples from the steel industry• Implications for decision making about new
technology
© Thachenkary 17
Technology/ProductionMar
ket
s/C
ust
omer
Lin
kag
es ARCHITECTURAL
REGULAR REVOLUTIONARY
NICHE CREATION
Conserve/Entrench existingcompetence
Disrupt/obsolete existingcompetence
Con
serv
e/E
ntre
nch
exis
ting
Lin
kage
sD
isru
pt e
xist
ing/
Cre
ate
new
lin
kage
s
Transilience Map
Radical technology applied to new markets
Refinements in technologyapplied to new customer groups
Refinements in technologyapplied to existing markets/customers
Disruptive changes in technologyapplied to existing markets/customers
© Thachenkary 18
• Steel Industry Examples• Architectural: Bessemer Process
– Prior to 1860:• single crucible process/limited quantities
– Bessemer• Air is blown through molten iron• Combustible mixture
– Construction of special buildings, converters• Increased output, lowered costs
– Created new markets, channels, and applications• Skyscrapers, skeleton constriction, use of rivets
– New problem solving skills in real time• New plant design, procedures, etc.
– Requires experimentation; Doing things differently
© Thachenkary 19
• Regular Innovation: Modern Continuous Casting– 1950s– Transforms liquid steel to semi finished slabs– Eliminates ingots and slabbing– Far less technical uncertainty– Innovative changes in the equipment– Extend and refines existing skills– Systems are custom designed to specification– Reinforces relations with existing customers
© Thachenkary 20
• Revolutionary: The Continuous Micromill– Nucor Co. (USA)– Scrap metal as raw material– Location decision– Electric furnace– Output: 50,000 tons per year– Highly automated– Fewer people, flat structure, low costs– Serves small local, but existing markets– Compete head on with existing big players
• Play to competitor’s weakness
© Thachenkary 21
• Niche Creation: Continuous Heat-Treating Process (CHTP)– Heat treating of sheet steel– Automated material flow– Complex, computer-based control system– Greater uniformity of steel structure– Refinements and extensions of existing
technology• Computer process control• Extension of integrated steel mill technology• New product characteristics
– Create new markets or customers by uncovering needs/new applications
© Thachenkary 22
Implications of Transilience Map
• Innovations are of different types• Each quadrant suggests different management
skills, responses• Each quadrant has different modes of
competition• Assess firm’s Strategy-Technology fit
– Investment consistent with strategy?– Yield defensible advantage over competition?
• Competitors response: acquire your skills easily?
• Implications for Cash Flow Analysis (DCF)?
© Thachenkary 23
Technology/ProductionMar
ket
s/C
ust
omer
Lin
kag
es ARCHITECTURAL
REGULAR REVOLUTIONARY
NICHE CREATION
Conserve/Entrench existingcompetence
Disrupt/obsolete existingcompetence
Con
serv
e/E
ntre
nch
exis
ting
Lin
kage
sD
isru
pt e
xist
ing/
Cre
ate
new
lin
kage
s
Transilience Map
Radical technology applied to new markets
Refinements in technologyapplied to new customer groups
Refinements in technologyapplied to existing markets/customers
Disruptive changes in technologyapplied to existing markets/customers
© Thachenkary 24
Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, and Public Policy
(David J. Teece)
• Why Innovators (First Movers) Fail?
• Why Imitators (Second or Late Movers) Succeed?
• Firms that have related capabilities that the innovator needs?
• Taxonomy of four quadrants
© Thachenkary 25
INNOVATOR FOLLOWER-IMITATOR
WIN
LOSE
SONY/BETAMAXXEROXLOTUS 1-2-3WANGWORDPERFECTATTHAYES MODEMS
IBMMATSUSHITA/VHSMICROSOFTPOLAROIDDELLGATEWAYAIRBUSMCI/SPRINT
KOADKDIGITALCOMPAQ
EMI/GE/CAT SCANG. D. SEARLE/NUTRAWEETNETSCAPE/EXPLORER?PALMPFIZER/VIAGRAAOL?AMAZON.COM?CELERA/HUMANGENOME?
© Thachenkary 26
Profiting from Innovations
• Three Factors to Consider:– Regimes of Appropriability– The Dominant Design Paradigm– Complementary Assets
© Thachenkary 27
Profiting from Innovation
• Regimes of Appropriability– Innovator’s ability to capture the profits– Tight or Weak?– Nature of the technology
• Product• Process• Tacit (difficult to articulate)• Codified (easier to transmit/receive)
– Legal instruments• Patents (inventing around patents)• Copyrights• Trade secrets (Coca Cola)
© Thachenkary 28
Profiting from Innovation
• The Dominant Design Paradigm– Signals scientific maturity– Competition shifts to price– Windows in computing– Cell Phones: CDMA/GSM– Once established, compete on process
innovations – Imitators could succeed
© Thachenkary 29
Profiting from Innovation
• Complementary Assets– Hardware vs. Software– Internet and E-Mail– Assets:
• Generic: General purpose• Specialized: Unilateral dependence• Co-specialized: Bilateral/Mutual dependence
© Thachenkary 30
Profiting from Innovation
• Who benefits?– Tight appropriability regime
• Competition is weak
– Weak appropriability regime• Design needs to be market sensitive• Pre-paradigm; low probability for innovators• Paradigm: Complementary assets significant
– Owners of specialized assets can succeed
© Thachenkary 31
Profiting from Innovation:Contract or Integrate?
• Contract– Tight appropriability– Complementary assets are abundant– Strategic partnering (IBM-Microsoft/PC)
• Partner’s failure• Partner becomes competitor
– Avoid irreversible capital investments
© Thachenkary 32
Profiting from Innovation:Contract or Integrate?
• Integrate– Involves ownership– Weak regime– Easy imitation– Timing and cash constraints– Competitor analysis is key to success
© Thachenkary 33
INNOVATOR FOLLOWER-IMITATOR
WIN
LOSE
SONY/BETAMAXXEROXLOTUS 1-2-3WANGWORDPERFECTATTHAYES MODEMS
IBMMATSUSHITA/VHSMICROSOFTPOLAROIDDELLGATEWAYAIRBUSMCI/SPRINT
KOADKDIGITALCOMPAQ
EMI/GE/CAT SCANG. D. SEARLE/NUTRAWEETNETSCAPE/EXPLORER?PALMPFIZER/VIAGRAAOL?AMAZON.COM?CELERA/HUMANGENOME?
© Thachenkary 34
Module 2: Summary
• What did we learn?
• Compare: Porter, Clark, and Teece– Similarities?– Differences?
• Integrate the three frameworks?
• French examples?
