ارتقاء عملکرد سرمایه گذاری تکنولوژی نوین تحت شرایط جانبی شبکه های مستقیم و غیر مستقیم
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|18097||2013||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 12935 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 28, Issue 2, March 2013, Pages 195–210
This study compares the effectiveness of five responses to external uncertainty in markets with network externalities: avoidance, imitation, control, cooperation, and real options reasoning as a form of strategic flexibility. Our analysis of 385 new technology ventures shows that direct and indirect network externalities have opposite effects on the effectiveness of these strategies. Moreover, under network externalities, attempts to make ventures less dependent upon environmental instabilities perform differently compared to attempts to control the environment. Finally, we show that real options reasoning does not always perform better under conditions of higher uncertainty, such as uncertainty due to direct network externalities.
In some markets, the value of the firm's new product depends not only on the characteristics of the product itself, but also on the number of users that will eventually adopt it (direct network effects such as in case of Internet instant messengers and other social network-related software and apps) or the number of complementary products that would be available on the market (indirect network effects such as in case of Blu-ray players and Blu-ray disks, mobile devices with different operating systems and applications for them, etc.). Such markets are called markets with network effects, and launching a product there is a major challenge. The connected world, next to the advantages it brings, transforms a variety of traditional markets into markets with network effects. As a result, an ever increasing number of new technology ventures have to cope with uncertainty associated with such markets. Prior research shows that new products launched in markets with network effects tend to generate 25% less profit compared to markets without such effects. On the other hand, successfully enacting such network effects can boost ventures’ performance. Therefore, new technology ventures should decide carefully which strategy in markets with which network effects they should choose. In our study we focus on five main uncertainty management strategies firms can employ: strategic avoidance, strategic imitation, strategic control, strategic cooperation, and strategic flexibility. From the perspective of the resource dependence theory, the former four strategies represent efforts to increase the venture's control over its environment. The fifth strategy, strategic flexibility, represents adaptation intended to make the venture less dependent upon changes in its environment. In this study we focus on real options reasoning as a special form of strategic flexibility that is particularly relevant for new technology ventures. We empirically investigated effectiveness of these strategies in markets with direct and indirect network effects using a sample of 385 NTVs drawn from the VentureOne 2001 database and the 1995–2000 Inc. 500 list. Contrary to our expectations, two strategies—strategic avoidance and strategic imitation—did not have a direct positive impact on NTVs’ ROI. The other three strategies had an overall positive effect on performance that differed depending on the type of market the technology venture operated in. Our results strongly support the distinction between the two types of strategies and two types of network effects. Looking at the significant interactions, real options reasoning had exactly the opposite moderating effects compared to the other four strategies (avoidance, imitation, control, and cooperation)—meaning that these two types of strategies behaved differently in both markets with direct and markets with indirect network effects. Another interesting finding is that when direct network effects strengthen the effect of a particular strategy, indirect network effects tend to weaken it, and vice versa. Firms enact direct network effects by increasing the number of users of the firm's products. Our results imply that this can be done best by intervening in the market directly and that action delay is useless. This makes avoidance, imitation, control, and cooperation the best ways to deal with direct network effects. In order to take advantage of indirect network effects, firms need to increase the number of complementary products and services. Our results show that this can be best done by pursuing several product options (which may be complementary to each other) rather than by trying to directly influence other firms to produce complementary products for one of those products. Finally, our study contributes to the real options literature by testing the theoretical proposition known as real options intuition: the higher the uncertainty, the greater the value of real options and the better they work. In our study “real options intuition” clearly does not hold in cases of uncertainty due to direct network effects. In particular, the effect of real options reasoning on both ROI and customer retention rate becomes worse when NTVs operate in markets with high direct network effects. At the same time, in line with the “real options intuition” proposition, real options reasoning indeed works better under uncertainty due to indirect network effects both in terms of ROI and customer retention rate. As a result, we identify two new sources of uncertainty that should be taken into account when deciding on the appropriateness of applying real options reasoning, thus redefining the boundaries of real options applicability.