Implications for the Literature and Practitioners--论文代写范文

关于开发和探索之间的关系,后者的关系并不显著。这一发现表明,可能对一个公司的资源配置有不同的影响。探索可能会限制资源的可用性,而开发不同。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

This study investigates the way in which exploitation and exploration independently and jointly influence the operational efficiency and strategic performance of a firm, and how they interact in improving both types of performance. The results of the analyses suggest that both exploitation and exploration are strongly associated with different levels of firm performance. Specifically, our findings suggest that exploitation has a greater positive impact on operational efficiency than exploration, and that exploration has a greater positive impact on strategic performance than exploitation. These findings suggest that exploitation contributes to short-term improvement and better operational performance, and that exploration contributes to long-term improvement and better strategic performance. 

  With regard to the relationship between exploitation and exploration, the results suggest that exploitation is positively related to exploration, and that exploration is also positively related to exploitation. However, the latter relationship is not statistically significant. This finding suggests that although exploitation can be a building block for exploration, exploration does not necessarily prompt exploitation. One possible reason for this non-significant result is that exploitation and exploration have different implications for a firm’s resource configuration. Exploration may limit the availability of resources for exploitation, whereas exploitation leverages resources for exploration. The results of our analyses also suggest that firm size and age are significantly associated with a firm’s exploitation, which in turn enhances both operational efficiency and strategic performance. 

  Our results imply that, consistent with the evidence that has been found by previous studies (Rothaermel, 2001; Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Lee, Lee, & Pennings, 2001), external learning through inter-firm collaboration has a stronger impact on exploration than it does on exploitation. To supplement these findings, we conducted in-depth interviews with over thirty executives of the small to medium-sized manufacturing firms in our sample, which are all firms that possess the cutting-edge technologies and dominant market share in their respective fields. These firms had aggressively developed original technologies and products, had collaborated with other firms or universities, had absorbed external technologies and knowledge, and had successfully developed new competence bases in their respective areas of business. 

 Implications for the Literature 
  This study makes several contributions to the literature of organizational learning and strategic management. First, we simultaneously examine the relationship between exploitation and exploration and their respective impact on performance. Our findings show that exploitation and exploration have different effects on firm performance, and in conducting similar analyses, therefore, researchers should make a clear distinction between a the decisions that a firm males on the deployment of its existing competence base, and those that it makes on the development of new a competence base to achieve superior performance. 

 Implications for Practitioners 
  This study has two implications for practitioners. First, our evidence suggests that the impact of exploitation on operational efficiency is greater than that of exploration, although exploration has a greater impact on strategic performance, such as the development of new technology and product development, than exploitation. Our study suggests that decisions both on the utilization and the development of resources and competencies are critical to the achievement of superior performance in both the short and the long term. 

  Although exploration activities that develop new resources and competences are not easy to carry out because they involve organization-wide commitment, managers should recognize that the mere accumulation or utilization of the existing competence base does not guarantee a sustainable competitive advantage, and that in a rapidly changing environment, firms should continuously search for new competence bases to augment their existing capabilities. Our evidence clearly shows that much of the variation in performance of firms is explained by the variation in their level of exploitation and exploration. 

Second, our evidence suggests that inter-firm collaboration is a very effective means of enhancing exploration. The evidence further highlights that even small firms with limited 22 resources are able to develop a sustainable competitive advantage that is comparable to that of resource-rich large enterprises through the formation of collaborative relationships with other firms, and can thereby enhance their exploration of new competence bases. Some firms may be reluctant to form alliances or other types of collaboration with other firms because of the risk of expropriation of proprietary know-how, but they should recognize that the key issue in inter-firm collaboration is not about how to avoid these risks, but about how to develop a good partnership within which to explore new competitive opportunities.

 Limitations 
  Despite the aforementioned contributions, this study has some potential limitations. We focus only on exploitation and exploration as key elements of competitive advantage, and other elements that affect performance, such as organizational culture, leadership, marketing competence, and other functional skills, are ignored. As superior performance is often based on a complex mix of interrelated and organizationally embedded resources (Black & Boal, 1994), more in-depth investigation is necessary to gain a true understanding of the links between different sets of resources and their relative impact on performance. The moderate R2 for operational efficiency in our results suggests that further development of the performance model might be helpful. However, the very high R2 for strategic performance suggests that the current model is strong in this area. （essay代写)

  This study is cross sectional in nature, and says little about the dynamic process of competitive strategy (Porter, 1991; Priem & Butler, 2001; Foss, Knudsen, & Montgomery, 1995). Some scholars have recently proposed a new perspective that emphasizes the dynamic and evolutionary nature of technological competencies (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). From this perspective, a firm’s distinctive competence is 23 viewed as a “process” rather than a fixed element, and the way in which a firm allocates the necessary resources for innovation over time, how it deploys its existing resources, and where it sources new resources is explained. However, because our study is cross sectional, it does not capture the process aspect of competitive strategy.（essay代写)

  51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
  51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多essay代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供essay代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。