Hypotheses of firms innovative--论文代写范文精选

在这样的市场中,公司从一个给定的资源,创造性地使用资源。之前的研究表明,新公司倾向于使用资源的创造性,因为他们没有经常阻止公司的专业结构。许多流程在新公司涌现,产生创新的解决方案。下面的essay代写范文进行讲述。

Abstract
We develop hypotheses about how four environmental dimensions influence the relationship between firm newness and innovation. We propose 2005 Katila and Shane 815 that lack of resources makes new firms better at innovating in certain environments and worse at innovating in others.

Competition 
Markets differ significantly in the number of competing firms they contain because bandwagon effects, economic factors, and the attractiveness of a market at a given point in time all influence number of competitors. We argue that firm newness operates differently in high-competition than in low-competition markets for three reasons. First, new firms perform better in crowded markets because these markets require greater flexibility to introduce innovations. This is because competition over resources is higher in markets with more firms (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). 

In such markets, firms that are good at deriving high value from a given amount of resources—that is, firms that use resouces creatively (Starr & MacMillan, 1990)—are likely to be innovative. Prior work shows that new firms tend to use resources creatively because they do not have the specialized structures and routines that often prevent firms from thinking about new uses for existing resources. Instead of following already created routines, many processes in new firms are emergent, yielding innovative solutions (Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003). Empirical results support this argument: for instance, Schoonhoven and her colleagues (Schoonhoven, Eisenhardt, & Lyman, 1990) found that new semiconductor firms shipped products faster when they had many competitors, because competition spurred the firms to innovate better. 

In contrast, when fewer firms operate in a market and, consequently, more resources are available, new firms are less innovative. Under these conditions, instead of flexibility, firms need the routinized capabilities of established firms to help them to acquire and assemble resources— capabilities that new firms have not yet mastered (Bhide, 1992). Second, new firms perform better under the condition of competitive ambiguity that is present in high-competition markets. Fragmentation resulting from the presence of a large number of firms increases ambiguity about competitive issues such as the positioning of products in a market (Cohen & Klepper, 1992; Sorenson, 2000). 

New firm managers adapt well to such ambiguity because the absence of existing operations allows them to make changes in positioning without worrying about the effect of such changes on existing customer or supplier relationships. Conversely, when markets have fewer firms, competitive ambiguities are lessened, favoring the more routinized operations of established firms (Katila & Mang, 2003). Third, new firms are more innovative in markets where diversity in approaches to innovation is high. The variance in approaches to innovation is an increasing function of number of competitors because each firm, with innovation modes and routines specific to its history, is likely to offer a different alternative approach (Dosi, 1988). Because new firms lack routines for innovation, they are disadvantaged in markets where innovation routines are standardized and little room for variation exists.

Financial Resources 
New firms often lack sufficient capital to finance innovation. Therefore, they must raise resources from external sources to obtain equipment and to hire people for innovative activities (Schoonhoven et al., 1990). Raising money from external sources creates “information asymmetry” problems between firms and external investors because it is difficult to monitor creative activities such as innovation (Holmstrom, 1989). As a result, it is difficult for firms to raise money for innovation from external investors, unless those investors have developed a specialization in financing innovation. Venture capitalists are one important category of investors who specialize in financing innovation (Amit, Brander, & Zott, 1998). 

The structure of venture capital arrangements allows these organizations to overcome many of the information asymmetry problems that plague external financing of innovation. Thus, we propose that access to venture capital, which varies across environments and over time, makes new firms more innovative. Venture capitalists can support new firm innovation in several ways. They help new firms obtain additional financing, help recruit a management team, identify customers and suppliers, monitor and develop investments by sitting on boards of directors, and engage in strategic and operational planning (Gorman & Sahlman, 1989; Sapienza & Gupta, 1994). In view of these skills of venture capitalists, we propose that new firms are better able to commercialize inventions in industries in which venture capital is plentiful. In contrast, when venture capital is less plentiful, the best source of capital to finance innovation is cash flow from existing operations. Although this source of capital only partially finances innovation in established firms, it does not finance the innovation process at all in new firms.

Manufacturing Intensity New firms lack the skills and routines that more established firms have to assemble, organize, and monitor the manufacturing resources that are needed for innovation. If innovation in a given market is manufacturing intensive—that is, if it depends on the joint exploitation of manufacturing assets and new technology (Galbraith, 1982)—new firms will have lower rates of innovation than they will have in less manufacturing intensive markets. In manufacturing-intensive markets, knowledge of the manufacturing processes is necessary to correctly specify new product characteristics, and the procedures and equipment for “scale-up” and process development similarly arise through continuous interaction between manufacturing engineers and research and development personnel. New firms often lack access to such knowledge (Gort & Klepper, 1982; Methe, Swaminathan, & Mitchell, 1996). In contrast, when manufacturing is not important to innovation, new firms innovate at a higher rate. In fact, the routines and planning necessary to take advantage of manufacturing resources often hinder innovation.

Market Size New firm innovation is also influenced by the size of the market. New firms often exploit markets that are too small or too hard for established firms to tap (Bhide, 1992; Christensen & Bower, 1996). Because new firms are not constrained by their existing organizational structures, by commitments to serve existing customers, or by supplier relationships, they effectively exploit small, niche markets (Dean, Brown, & Bamford, 1998; Swaminathan, 1995). As a result, the smallness of a market is less likely to be a constraint for new firms, because they, unlike established firms, do not face an opportunity cost of changing markets when they innovate.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)